In mixing music for 5.1, it seems to be consistent that almost no one has a full-range (as in a 10-12-15" woofer) center channel speaker -- it just doesn't fit. It's the big difference between mixing for cinema (which does have full-range centers behind the screen). Just curious.

I was auditioning a mix on a high-end system in a San Francisco showroom yesterday and was amazed at how -- okay, silly -- the $2000 center channel speaker sounded in attempting to reproduce any bass at all.

=John

I don't believe I've ever seen a speaker primarily designed as a centre channel speaker that is "full range". I have seen/heard some that purport to go down to the high 30s but they sound much better with a sub and proper bass management.

Of course, in a cost is no object system, I would have five identical full-range speakers plus sub (I'll get back to you with specifics when I win the lotto ;) ).

If one is using a purposefully designed centre channel speaker, one should expect to "bass manage" the signal and have a sub handy--IMO.

I have had identical full range LCRs, three old JBL L55s (14" woofers), it made a very good front end. The problem was they didn't timbre match the surrounds.
I've also had 7 identical speakers that would play down to 40 htz.

I'm using a B&W HTM-1D, with 801Ds as L and R speakers. I don't cross over the center speaker with bass management, and it sounds great. It is quite large, though, and may not fit in many installations.

Lee

I find the use of bass management at all even more silly. For music playback towers that go down to the low 30s is more than enough to satisfy me. There is so much more weight to the music. Only workaround is to use multiple subs with speaker level inputs and outputs so that small speakers can be run full range (not in stereo bass though).

The Definitive Technology line has a CLR 3000 center with a built-in powered 10" subwoofer. You can just feed it the speaker wire, and plug in the sub for full range. You don't need to run an RCA to it.

This one is a bipolar design.

I am interested in getting some form of setup from them in the near future.

Doug

Getting a third main speaker for a center is the best option. Professional auditions should all occur that way.

I'm using a B&W HTM-1D, with 801Ds as L and R speakers. I don't cross over the center speaker with bass management, and it sounds great. It is quite large, though, and may not fit in many installations.

Lee

I use a HTM-2D with 803Ds L/R and 804's rear (just as important to have full range rears because bi-poles just don't cut it for HT use and certainly not for music) and set all to full range. Would love to use a 803D for a center but since I only have a little over 2' of clearance space under my screen.....

I find the use of bass management at all even more silly. For music playback towers that go down to the low 30s is more than enough to satisfy me. There is so much more weight to the music. Only workaround is to use multiple subs with speaker level inputs and outputs so that small speakers can be run full range (not in stereo bass though).Really? Having a sub (or subs) decouple the bass from the mains allows far more flexibility for overall placement, in my experience. I can now place my mains where they image best (which is virtually NEVER the same place where bass response is best) and let the sub handle the bass as it also can be placed for optimal response. My next system (about 18 months away as it will be installed in an area that will be remodeled first--gotta pay for the remodel before the audio gear) will be a 2 channel system and no matter what speakers I get, there will be a sub in the picture.

I understand the benefits of multiple subs and my comment was directed at the satellite/bookshelf vs tower speaker debate. The use of subs with towers is probably the only way to make sure your system goes down flat to 20hz but for 99% of music it really is not necessary unless your room is large and bass response is weak.

As far as placent is concerned I use sound treatment directly to the sides and behind my mid and high frequency drivers. This I have found offers the best response in my room since I can bring the towers closer to the wall to increase bass response without sacrificing good imaging/depth of soundstage and detail.

When I was doing my last bit of speaker shopping (in 2003-2004), I found that whatever quality tower I could get at a certain price, I could get a standmount from one level up from the same company. Eventually, I turned my attention exclusively to standmounts as a sub was going to be in the mix anyway (I use my gear for both 5.1 movies and audio of various channels/res). I suspect I will be doing the same thing next time around. However, the room is not that big and I may well compromise if I can find some really good towers as space for the sub may be problematic. We'll see. I've got at least 18 months to ponder all the possibilities.

I understand the benefits of multiple subs and my comment was directed at the satellite/bookshelf vs tower speaker debate. The use of subs with towers is probably the only way to make sure your system goes down flat to 20hz but for 99% of music it really is not necessary unless your room is large and bass response is weak.



One has to be practical here, and step out from the theoretical world. Many can't afford or place 5 tower speakers, and even more use their system for dual duty, so bass management becomes essential. The use of towers are not necesarry to achieve 20hz extenseion, nor to achieve a "perfect" blend.

I needed a big center to timber match my mains. Problem was I run a front projector so I ended up building a custom center. I have built smaller speakers in the past and this was a fun project. Had lots of help with this one from my buddies over on the Klipsch forum.

Drivers used:
2 Klipsch KV1089 Copper Metallic Woofers.
Electrovoice T35 (aka Klipsch K77) Horn Tweeter w/Alnico Magnets
Klipsch K52 Midrange driver w/ a 90x60 TriTrix Horn
Crossover is 3 way 2nd order(12db) w/ a 3 octave spread between crossover points. Metallized polypropylene are used in critical midrange and tweeter paths. 18 guage inductors are used to keep DC resistance to a minimum. Crossover points are 700/5600. 2 4" flared ports in the rear. Cabinet size is 42"w x 13.5"h x 15"d

Pic attached

If you're mixing music only, not movies, then I don't see why stuff like the bass drums can't come from the mains.
Yes, in concerts the drummer is typically in the middle of the stage, but that's not where the SOUND is coming from....you can't hear (at least in rock/pop concerts) the drums acoustically...you can only hear them in the PA system, which tends to be overhead and on the right and left..not in the middle.

I remember old 2 channel stereo stuff that only had guitar in one speaker, and bass in the other. Drums in both or with the bass.
"Audiophiles" would always comment on how precise the instrument placement was and how "like the real thing" it sounded....which was valid if you were talking about classical music. But rock/pop music is amplified, and they pump all the sound from both sides of the stage.

So if I hear a recording of say, Van Halen, I'd want all the music coming out of all the speakers, just like I'd hear it in concert. In this case, other than just adding more sheer volume, I don't see how a full-range center channel would help much.

If you're mixing music only, not movies, then I don't see why stuff like the bass drums can't come from the mains.They can come from the mains, but there may be other locations in the room that provide better bass reproduction. So even if the drums have been mixed into the main L/R channels, their lowest couple of octaves may not sound best when reproduced by the main L/R speakers. Better instead to filter off the really deep bass and re-route those signals to subwoofer(s) that are placed where you get better low frequency playback in your particular room. Yes, in concerts the drummer is typically in the middle of the stage, but that's not where the SOUND is coming from....you can't hear (at least in rock/pop concerts) the drums acoustically...you can only hear them in the PA system, which tends to be overhead and on the right and left..not in the middle.Do you want to let the limitations of a PA driven rock concert dictate the playback quality of studio recordings you listen to at home? Don't you think you can do better?

Sanjay

I reproduce all five channels full-range. Since I do not have five truely full-range speakers, I have integrated a subwoofer with the main speakers, extending the frequency response of each down to the lower response limits of the subwoofer.

When mixing 5.1 music, I of course do the same. All five main channels are full-range, from 20-20k Hz. And I never never never put musical content in the LFE channel, that's not what the LFE channel is for (but if I did, the subwoofer is there, ready to play the LFE content, too).

I'm not quite sure why Bass Management is still controversial and misunderstood in 2008.

I'm not quite sure why Bass Management is still controversial and misunderstood in 2008. Beats me too. I do wish though that everybody would had mixed MCH music like you had described, but it's all over the place. The center channel especially treated like a "stepchild" on some recordings I have.

Beats me too. I do wish though that everybody would had mixed MCH music like you had described, but it's all over the place. The center channel especially treated like a "stepchild" on some recordings I have.


Well, a phantom image and a discrete image are both valid ways to present a solid sonic object, but they sound different. Any mixing engineer who patently rejects either is just plain ignorant.

Well, a phantom image and a discrete image are both valid ways to present a solid sonic object, but they sound different. Any mixing engineer who patently rejects either is just plain ignorant.

That's one of the things that I hope Penteo eventually clears up for everyone. In Penteo, the center is again re-inserted at 4.5 db into a firm center channel speaker, and the overall mix nulls out to silence.

Having spent a great deal of my life behind a recording console, when sitting in the sweet spot in the middle of the console between two full range speakers, the whole point is to have a phantom that is as close as possible to having a real center channel speaker. Back in the days of 3-track recording, many studios monitored in what would be called 3.0 now, with the console wired to do a simultaneous 3.0 monitor output and a 2.0 stereo output, putting the center approximately 4.5db down into each of the left and right channels. (4.5 db is the compromise between the 6.0 electrical halving and the 3.0 acoustical halving...)

Most modern (under 50 years old) mixers have never mixed on anything other than 2.0, so having a firm center is totally foreign to them. You can't fault them, they grew up in studios and at rock concerts in which there is no center; the center is always replicated as two identical mono waveforms coming from the left and right.

I really appreciate all of you who have participated in this thread; you have helped me to decide how to handle bass management in Penteo -- that decision being to not touch it, and let the end user deal with the problem of not having a full range center with their own bass management.

=John

...

I really appreciate all of you who have participated in this thread; you have helped me to decide how to handle bass management in Penteo -- that decision being to not touch it, and let the end user deal with the problem of not having a full range center with their own bass management.

=John


:)

i WANT a full-range center speaker. But this is not an ideal world (for some people here it is. and yes, I envy you.) :D

And I never never never put musical content in the LFE channel, that's not what the LFE channel is for (but if I did, the subwoofer is there, ready to play the LFE content, too).

I'm not quite sure why Bass Management is still controversial and misunderstood in 2008.

There is a difference between a LFE track and subwoofer music. I've had a stereo sat/sub playback system (JBL L212) since '79, long before there was HT 5.1
At one point in my current HT I had each of the LCRs connected to their own 12" sub. The sound was truely amazing. But it just looked too conjested across the front of the 65" HDTV, so I took out the subs. Now I have the L/R mains stacked on a pair of 15" subs with the identical center by its self.

The problem with a phantom center is if you move, even slightly, the image will shift. Or if there is more than one person listening to MCM or even stereo, then the "center" is going to be off center for anyone not sitting at the center seat.
Of all the SACD/DVD-A disc I have I just find it strange that quite a few don't use the center at all, while others will have the lead singer's voice coming from all three, and others still, will have the lead vocal coming from the L/R and only instrumentation coming from the center.

The Definitive Technology line has a CLR 3000 center with a built-in powered 10" subwoofer. You can just feed it the speaker wire, and plug in the sub for full range. You don't need to run an RCA to it.

This one is a bipolar design.

I am interested in getting some form of setup from them in the near future.

Doug

I have the clr 3000. It is designed to match their bipolar mains (I have the 7001sc's) but it is not bipolar. It is a full range center. It does a hell of a job anchoring the center soundstage on multi channel music and ht.

Hummmmmmm...

Did I miss something in this thread? I have the following setup:

Polk LSi9 for left and right, LSiC for the center, and LSiFx for the rear surrounds. All look to me as if they have identical speakers...except arranged differently depending on the task. I also have two subs (under the left and right speakers) with an 80hz crossover.

Now...my understanding is that below 80 hz becomes non-directional (well, mostly)...so it doesn't matter where the sound is coming from...it's simply the "presence" of sound that low that matters. Is this "subwoofer" marketing lying to me?

Polk does advocate running the left and right speaker wire through the subs and let the subs do the crossover work (and select "no sub" in receiver configuration). Are you suggesting that full range speakers would provide a fuller sound?

Marcus

Hummmmmmm...

Did I miss something in this thread? I have the following setup:

Polk LSi9 for left and right, LSiC for the center, and LSiFx for the rear surrounds. All look to me as if they have identical speakers...except arranged differently depending on the task. I also have two subs (under the left and right speakers) with an 80hz crossover.

Now...my understanding is that below 80 hz becomes non-directional (well, mostly)...so it doesn't matter where the sound is coming from...it's simply the "presence" of sound that low that matters. Is this "subwoofer" marketing lying to me?

Polk does advocate running the left and right speaker wire through the subs and let the subs do the crossover work (and select "no sub" in receiver configuration). Are you suggesting that full range speakers would provide a fuller sound?

Marcus

This post rambles a bit - can't seem to get my point across as succinctly as I;d like - my apologies in advance.

Ideally, all speakers would be identical, and reproduce all frequencies perfectly without the receiver redirecting bass from all channels to be combined with any LFE element from x.1 mixes to be reproduced using a separate subwoofer.

In essence, each of your LSi9+Sub combo are acting as a full-range speaker (not that the LSi9s are slouches all by themselves - they are rated down to 50Hz, right?). The LSi9s on their own are not really full range - they wouldn't handle 30 Hz material as well as a subwoofer - but for any music that is not SW heavy, you might not notice. The issue at hand is what happens to surround mix audio sent to your center? Because it isn't a full-range speaker, your receiver has to either re-direct the bass to the other subs, or the bass elements of the center channel do not get reproduced.

The directionality of audio tails off when you hit the low frequencies, but the issue is that there is still some non-zero ability for your ears/brain to sense direction, especially around 80Hz. Certainly by 20Hz the directional vector stuff gets all muddled in your head. IMHO, ideally we'd all have speakers that go reasonably flat down to at least 50 Hz (i.e. maybe get rated as down to 25Hz), and at least one subwoofer would be for below that, getting the remaining audio below 50Hz from all speakers through the receiver's bass management. Then either mix in the LFE, or perhaps another dedicated sub, of true x.1 material.

An interesting experiment would be to run identical 30 Hz signals to each of the L and R front inputs of a receiver, but have the signal exactly out of phase. Presumably the receiver would use bass management to "add" the signals, and the result would be a perfect nothing. On the other hand, run those signals directly to two subwoofers placed on either side of your room, and I'll bet you still hear something - it will sound weird and awfully out of phase, but you'd hear something. Although this isn't usually a desired effect, that is the element of directionality that can get compromised with a single subwoofer handling all the bass and LFE.

So ideally, you'd have another sub for your center channel mounted right below it.

Hmm, I think I've rambled enough this morning. Need more coffee.

shinksma

Hummmmmmm...

Did I miss something in this thread? I have the following setup:

Polk LSi9 for left and right, LSiC for the center, and LSiFx for the rear surrounds. All look to me as if they have identical speakers...except arranged differently depending on the task. I also have two subs (under the left and right speakers) with an 80hz crossover.

Now...my understanding is that below 80 hz becomes non-directional (well, mostly)...so it doesn't matter where the sound is coming from...it's simply the "presence" of sound that low that matters. Is this "subwoofer" marketing lying to me?

Polk does advocate running the left and right speaker wire through the subs and let the subs do the crossover work (and select "no sub" in receiver configuration). Are you suggesting that full range speakers would provide a fuller sound?

MarcusI would NOT run the speakers through the sub and set "no sub" in the receiver. I don't know why the speaker company would tell you to do that (that is a configuration I would ONLY use in a 2 channel setup, and then only if there was no bass management in the receiver/pre-pro). The receiver has far more flexible settings for bass management AND the amp in the sub would NOT have to drive the mains as well.

I would NOT run the speakers through the sub and set "no sub" in the receiver. I don't know why the speaker company would tell you to do that (that is a configuration I would ONLY use in a 2 channel setup, and then only if there was no bass management in the receiver/pre-pro). The receiver has far more flexible settings for bass management AND the amp in the sub would NOT have to drive the mains as well.
I second that, I also own 4 LSI9s and running dedicated power amps to them, but they just can't muster much bass cleanly below 60hz or so. The ideal crossover slection is indeed 80hz, especially if you use them for dual duty, like most of us do.For music you could probably can get away with 60hz setting, but I wouldn't use a powered sub's HP filter which in many cases are mis marked, and use phase inducing analog filters. Most sub's don't even offer an HP filter, and Polk should know that, unless they advocate a "full range" set up for a bookshelf speaker.

I would NOT run the speakers through the sub and set "no sub" in the receiver. I don't know why the speaker company would tell you to do that (that is a configuration I would ONLY use in a 2 channel setup, and then only if there was no bass management in the receiver/pre-pro). The receiver has far more flexible settings for bass management AND the amp in the sub would NOT have to drive the mains as well.

Yeah, that was the other point I wanted to make: by running the subs and L/R mains together, you cannot send any LFE or bass from the other channels to the subs.

I suspect Desert Pilot is running his/her subs in unpowered mode, so the main L+R of the amp is driving the subs directly, and the subs are using a HPF to send the remaining signal to the LSi9s. This was the way to do it before the advent of powered subs and receiver bass management in a 2-ch system, but I'd not recommend it now with a multi-channel (x.1, where x>2) system. This is causing undue strain on the receiver's L+R amps, since they have to push a sub as well as the mains.

shinksma

Hummmmmmm...

Did I miss something in this thread? I have the following setup:

Polk LSi9 for left and right, LSiC for the center, and LSiFx for the rear surrounds. All look to me as if they have identical speakers...except arranged differently depending on the task. I also have two subs (under the left and right speakers) with an 80hz crossover.

Now...my understanding is that below 80 hz becomes non-directional (well, mostly)...so it doesn't matter where the sound is coming from...it's simply the "presence" of sound that low that matters. Is this "subwoofer" marketing lying to me?

Polk does advocate running the left and right speaker wire through the subs and let the subs do the crossover work (and select "no sub" in receiver configuration). Are you suggesting that full range speakers would provide a fuller sound?I would NOT run the speakers through the sub and set "no sub" in the receiver.Except that he has 2 subs. Based upon his description, one for each front speaker, located identically, underneath each speaker. Given this, connecting each [speaker+sub] combo as an individual channel, in stereo, with the receiver set up as having NO SUB, is a reasonable configuration. Whether this is the "best" way to connect his setup IS arguable.


I don't know why the speaker company would tell you to do that (that is a configuration I would ONLY use in a 2 channel setup, and then only if there was no bass management in the receiver/pre-pro). The receiver has far more flexible settings for bass management AND the amp in the sub would NOT have to drive the mains as well.I really don't want to get into a discussion of why Polk would recommend this, whether it is an old, outdated recommendation, etc..

But this connection method, contrary to what you may think, actually does offer some flexibility in bass management that is not afforded by the AVR's bass management scheme. Although the AVR does probably offer several different fixed crossover values, what the AVR does not allow is the ability to independently and completely variably adjust the subwoofer's low-pass filter relative to the fixed high-pass filter of the subwoofer's speaker outputs (or the unfiltered, full-range, low-end capability of the speakers, depending upon the exact nature of the subwoofer's speaker outputs and the exact connection method used).

The subs' amps most definitely do not drive the speakers when they are connected to the subwoofers' speaker-level outputs. That's not how a subwoofer's speaker level outputs operate.



Yeah, that was the other point I wanted to make: by running the subs and L/R mains together, you cannot send any LFE or bass from the other channels to the subs.Of course you can. If the receiver is set up as having NO SUB, the LFE channel, which is an independently encoded channel, and any rerouted bass from those channels set to SMALL is sent to the front channels where it will reproduced by the [front speakers + subwoofers] combo. NO information at all is lost with this cojnnection scheme. As I pointed out, whether this is the "best" way to connect everything in his setup IS arguable and a case CAN be be made for a few different connection schemes, one of them being the one he describes.




Please be aware that we REALLY should NOT hijack this thread with a "discussion" about the advantages and disadvantages of the different connection methodologies that can be utilized when running identical front L/R subwoofers. If you want to discuss this, Desert Pilot, you should start a whole new thread in the "Audio Theory............" or "Subwoofer.........." subforums.

Yeah, that was the other point I wanted to make: by running the subs and L/R mains together, you cannot send any LFE or bass from the other channels to the subs.


Of course you can. If the receiver is set up as having NO SUB, the LFE channel and any rerouted bass from those channels set to SMALL is sent to the front channels where it will reproduced by the [front speakers + subwoofers] combo. NO information is lost. Whether this is the "best" way to connect everything is the only thing that is arguable and a case CAN be be made for a few different connection schemes, one of them being the one he describes.


oops, you're right. I assumed that all speakers were set to large, and forgot about the case where the receiver could re-route all the other bass and LFE to the mains if SW=no and mains are set to Large.

Back to the topic at hand: I started a long "this vs that" post, but the short story is: no, I don't use a full-range center, but I made sure my center matched my other speakers freq-response-wise, and the use of a subwoofer seems to have resulted in a sufficient-for-me sound. The logistics of putting a 12" or 15" woofer anywhere near the centerline of my TV is daunting. I can't see anyone doing that in a typical "family room" environment - it would take a dedicated HT room, and I would guess some/many of the very serious HT AVSers already have that type of configuration.

OK, a small aside: How ideal is it to have no subwoofer, but instead a full set of full range speakers (or speaker + dedicated sub combo at each position, like Desert Pilot's mains)? Is the LFE component programmed by sound engineers assuming a single, powerful source, and multiple sources mess up the imaging/phasing?

Maybe too many full-range sources is bad for the overall rumble effect. And what is "full range"? Does it have to go to the levels enjoyed by owners of subwoofers that reach 15Hz? Can a typical receiver actually pump out that much power to move that much air while keeping the rest of the signal clean? A typical subwoofer employed by AVSers will be at least 200W, I would guess. In a 5.0 channel system, that means every speaker has to be capable of an extra 40W, all in the woofer. Is that asking too much?

Just throwing ideas out there (again),

shinksma

OK, a small aside: ..............It's not really a small aside. I would encourage you to start another thread elsewhere to discuss this as it will (further) hijack Penteo's thread if we do it here. It will probably draw more responses (= more viewpoints) if you start it elsewhere under its very own thread title.

I don't think it is hijacking the thread at all. The subject is using full range speakers at every position. I was commenting that all 5 of my speakers have identical components...just configured differently for L/R or C or LS/RS. They include two 5 1/4 inch drivers and one 1 inch ring radiator tweeter. I set the crossover to 80 hz. I am assuming these speakers are NOT full range because they do not include a 12 or 15 inch woofer.

A couple of previous posts indicate there may be a zone between 25hz and 80hz that SHOULD be included within each speaker and not left only to the subs. Which is why I commented that Polk had recommended setting the L and R speakers to LARGE, no SW, and wiring through the subs and letting the subs do the crossover. I do NOT configure my system this way. And they are powered SW 300 Watts.

I think it is a widespread discussion point about using subs to substitute for full range. The "musicality" of the sub and its configuration is an attempt to not only reproduce LFE...but to also blend the music from your speakers down through the subs. What was of interest is the comment that there is indeed some "directionality" below 80 hz and this argues for using full range speakers at every position.

Marcus

I don't think it is hijacking the thread at all. The subject is using full range speakers at every position. I was commenting that all 5 of my speakers have identical components...just configured differently for L/R or C or LS/RS. They include two 5 1/4 inch drivers and one 1 inch ring radiator tweeter. I set the crossover to 80 hz. I am assuming these speakers are NOT full range because they do not include a 12 or 15 inch woofer....

If both 5 1/4' drivers where low frequency only it would be about equal to an 8" or 9" woofer but since one must be mid-range then they are no where close to full range speakers. 80Hz may be the manufacturer recommended crossover but I doubt they can accurately reproduce (even with proper placement and room acoustics) that low of an octave.

So as far as this thread goes you have no full range speakers much less the center (which would likely reproduce even less bass due to room placement).

Hmm, I feel a responsibility for the possibility that this is going OT, so I'll quickly point out the Audio Theory forum where I wandered into to get more background info and look for existing threads on the issue. sivadselim is right - there are plenty of places there to discuss the relative merits, for example.

So to get back on-topic, I have to ask, beyond just wondering whether folks have a full-range center, whether PenteoSurround wants to know because people typically don't have one and often the bass management aspect of the receiver means the listener doesn't get the same audio response as if there was a full-range center? i.e., what is really at the heart of the question?

I guess my point is that the basic topic of the thread is just a question, and the really interesting aspects lead one to the other forum.

IMHO,

shinksma

I think the original question is ill-founded. Surround music should be mixed on the assumption that people have 5 identical full-range speakers, just as 2-channel music should be mixed on the assumption that people have 2 identical full-range speakers. (I leave aside the issue of synthetic upmixing.)

It's then up to the listener to get their system as close to that ideal as possible, by any combination of actually having full-range speakers, having proper bass management, or using advanced EQ like Audyssey.

One shouldn't be mixing to accommodate perceived deficiencies of current systems. It just burns in limitations - like mixers who attempted bass management at source to work around a temporary problem of DVDA/SACD players without bass management. That may have aided playback on those early, primitive systems, but that hack is now pointless and leaves the mix prone to LFE calibration problems and general muddiness as it fights with the modern user's bass management.

If someone is really serious about multichannel music, they'll have 5 identical speakers, as I do. Albeit at the present they're just KEF KHT2005 satellites, because that's all the budget and space permitted, but I specifically chose them because they were identical monopoles and hence optimal for music.

When I upgrade I will probably be forced to have a different centre, but I will be very conscious of trying to match them as much as possible, and get as full-range, high-spec a centre as I can. And it appears that modern technology now permits significantly better timbre matching via Audyssey, reducing the problem of a non-identical centre.

So, in summary, don't try to mix to accommodate current technology. Lay down the best 5.0 mix you can for the ideal ITU-R BS.775 system, futureproofing the recording. We can then strive to get our systems as close to that ideal as possible.

If both 5 1/4' drivers where low frequency only it would be about equal to an 8" or 9" woofer but since one must be mid-range then they are no where close to full range speakers. 80Hz may be the manufacturer recommended crossover but I doubt they can accurately reproduce (even with proper placement and room acoustics) that low of an octave.

Oh yes it can, and speaking from direct experience, can you say the same? The drivers alone not gonna tell you the whole story, the box is a major component here as well, and both driver has it's own tuning with separate ports. 80 HZ is a cake for the LSI9.

I don't think it is hijacking the thread at all. The subject is using full range speakers at every position.No, the subject of the thread is whether anyone is using a full-range center channel speaker. The reasons the center speaker was specifically the subject are because, due to space contraints and/or aesthetics, the center channel speaker is the least likely speaker in a setup to be full-range, and probably because Penteo is specifically interested in deriving a 3rd, center channel from 2 channel recordings.

Surround music should be mixed on the assumption that people have 5 identical full-range speakers, just as 2-channel music should be mixed on the assumption that people have 2 identical full-range speakers.

It's then up to the listener to get their system as close to that ideal as possible, by any combination of actually having full-range speakers, having proper bass management, or using advanced EQ like Audyssey.

One shouldn't be mixing to accommodate perceived deficiencies of current systems.

So, in summary, don't try to mix to accommodate current technology. Lay down the best 5.0 mix you can for the ideal ITU-R BS.775 system, futureproofing the recording. We can then strive to get our systems as close to that ideal as possible.I agree except that I would add that the same should apply to not only music soundtracks, but to movie soundtracks, as well.

I also think it should be made clear that specifically authoring a discrete and non-redundant LFE track for a 5.1 music disc is NOT an example of authoring bass management into the LFE track.

In mixing music for 5.1, it seems to be consistent that almost no one has a full-range (as in a 10-12-15" woofer) center channel speaker -- it just doesn't fit. It's the big difference between mixing for cinema (which does have full-range centers behind the screen). Just curious. =John

I do use a full range center speaker, although to get a better match with my right and left mains I was forced to go partially the DIY route. The result has been better than any commercial alternative, but not ultimately completely satisfactory. I do prefer a full-range center, and surrounds for that matter, but am not sure that using an augmenting sub somewhere in the front of the room is all that much of a compromise.

I hope to go with a 'full range' centre. I currently have a pair of PMC GB1 (http://www.pmc-speakers.com/product.php?mode=view&pid=31)s (transmission line (http://www.pmc-speakers.com/company/technology.php) tuned to 29Hz), as LR, and it's accompanying stand mount centre channel DB1Mi (http://www.pmc-speakers.com/product.php?mode=view&pid=119)-C (same basic drive set, though upgraded from the GB1 model). I want to split my twin AV rack into two, one for audio, the other for video, and then put a GB1 in the middle.
Having heard PMC's monster BB5-XBD-A (http://www.pmc-speakers.com/37.html)s as a front LCR at the 2006 AES in San Francisco (MB2S-A (http://www.pmc-speakers.com/137.html)s as rear channels) was truly impressive, the next step up, for me, would be a front trio of IB2 (http://www.pmc-speakers.com/141.html)s for a solid front stage (or maybe their tower EB1i (http://www.pmc-speakers.com/176.html)s).
Now that I've got my GB1s setup well for stereo I do understand Pento's talk of phantom center channels (I keep getting up to make sure nothing is coming from my centre channel). I'm also looking forward to getting some of the 3.0 RCA mixes to try out too (also need a pre/pro that has 5.1 inputs too).

So I would like them full range so I can do bass management until I get a full range LCR setup.