or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Speakers › Goodbye Center Channel
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Goodbye Center Channel - Page 8

post #211 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdclark View Post

That has not been my experience, using a phantom center with mains separated by the normal distance relative to the listening position, any more than the imaging suffers listening to stereo material through the same pair.

This is not an easy comparison to make. You can't just switch the processor to "center=none." Recalibration, and probably some tweaking of speaker positioning, is also required. That's why I'm not making any argument in absolute terms, only in terms of what can be achieveed under the right circumstances. Whether it's desirable or worthwhile depends on many variables. Just using a CC speaker is usually going to be simpler.

You can in fact just set the processor to "center=none". Calibration has already been done and all the calibrations I know about calibrate each speaker separately anyways. If speaker positioning was good with the center it should be just as good without the center to be honest, if not, the placement never was optimal which is very important either way.

Gear mentioned in this thread:

post #212 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johan81 View Post

You can in fact just set the processor to "center=none". Calibration has already been done and all the calibrations I know about calibrate each speaker separately anyways. If speaker positioning was good with the center it should be just as good without the center to be honest, if not, the placement never was optimal which is very important either way.

Calibration is done at reference level. Remove a speaker, and the levels of the individual channels need to be raised in order for the total system to achieve reference level. This alone will change the optimizations for the mains. Not to mention that the CC speaker is contributing quite a lot to the overall frequency-response of the whole system, and removing it will change that curve.

The amount of toe-in for the mains could also be optimally different in a system with or without a CC speaker when there is one listener. This would also require recalibration.

Every room and system are different, of course, and results vary. I think recalibration is needed even with much less enormous changes than the removal of an entire speaker.
post #213 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdclark View Post

Calibration is done at reference level. Remove a speaker, and the levels of the individual channels need to be raised in order for the total system to achieve reference level.
Reference level is not a total, it's 115 dB for the sub and 105 dB for each channel (with part of that contributed by the sub if set to small).
post #214 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by sivadselim View Post

It redistributes the center channel info identically; splits it evenly across the front channels.

Quote:
Originally Posted by psgcdn View Post

Any dynamic compression added? (e.g. Dolby Digital)

Quote:
Originally Posted by sivadselim View Post

Not really relevant. I think there is some discussion about DRC in this thread. Apparently the way different AVRs handle this differs. But I would expect that if there is DRC being applied when configured as having no center, the way it is applied should be identical for both the lossy and lossless soundtracks, which is what he asked about.

Might not be the same. I don't think it was for Doldy Digital and DTS on DVD. If not having a center enables DRC, then that's a huge reason to have a center.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerryLove View Post

Shouldn't be (though if you are less than 3db from clipping your speakers before turning on phantom, there's a possibility)
I don't think engaging it is volume dependent as that processing is done way before a volume control. I doubt there's a feedback loop there.
post #215 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdclark View Post

This is not an easy comparison to make.
True, but it is a comparison that I made before making the decision whether to use a center or not, and therefore whether I should recommend to others to use a center or not. A simplified summary of my test results is that if you can't separate the L/R by more than five feet that there's little to be gained by using a center, but if you can there is, and the wider the L/R can be spread the more useful the center. Distance to the LP also enters the equation, but it holds pretty true for the average room's 8 to 15 foot range.
post #216 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by psgcdn View Post

Reference level is not a total, it's 115 dB for the sub and 105 dB for each channel (with part of that contributed by the sub if set to small).

Whether you consider reference level per channel or in toto, it will still produce higher levels from the main left and right speakers when playing multichannel material with a phantom center.
post #217 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdclark View Post

Calibration is done at reference level. Remove a speaker, and the levels of the individual channels need to be raised in order for the total system to achieve reference level. This alone will change the optimizations for the mains. Not to mention that the CC speaker is contributing quite a lot to the overall frequency-response of the whole system, and removing it will change that curve.

The amount of toe-in for the mains could also be optimally different in a system with or without a CC speaker when there is one listener. This would also require recalibration.

Every room and system are different, of course, and results vary. I think recalibration is needed even with much less enormous changes than the removal of an entire speaker.

Well, I understand that you are confused that it needs recalibration, but it really doesn't, the processor "knows" this and can compensate, the added audio will be rerouted to the right and left and thus will not be a problem. Processors (at least the somewhat recent, since about 2003 or so) are smart and calibrate each speaker separately, this is a fact and you really don't need to recalibrate.
post #218 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johan81 View Post

Well, I understand that you are confused that it needs recalibration, but it really doesn't, the processor "knows" this and can compensate, the added audio will be rerouted to the right and left and thus will not be a problem. Processors (at least the somewhat recent, since about 2003 or so) are smart and calibrate each speaker separately, this is a fact and you really don't need to recalibrate.

I'm not confused about anything. But believe what you want.

There's a reason the processor needs to "hear" the room during calibration, and when you make significant changes in the physical setup of the speakers, it needs to hear the room again. It has no idea what the room sounds like if you add or subtract a speaker in a new location, or change a speaker's physical relationship with room boundaries. You can move a speaker three inches, run a new calibration, and see changes in the resulting curves. Try it some time.
post #219 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by psgcdn View Post

Might not be the same. I don't think it was for Doldy Digital and DTS on DVD. If not having a center enables DRC, then that's a huge reason to have a center.

That's not what he asked about. A lossless codec should be treated identically to a lossy one. So if DRC is applied to lossy Dolby I would expect it to be applied to lossless Dolby. And if it's not applied to lossy DTS I would expect it to not be applied to lossless DTS.

But all he asked was whether the center channel info was re-routed identically with the lossless codecs. It is.
Edited by sivadselim - 11/27/13 at 7:40am
post #220 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdclark View Post

I'm not confused about anything. But believe what you want.

There's a reason the processor needs to "hear" the room during calibration, and when you make significant changes in the physical setup of the speakers, it needs to hear the room again. It has no idea what the room sounds like if you add or subtract a speaker in a new location, or change a speaker's physical relationship with room boundaries. You can move a speaker three inches, run a new calibration, and see changes in the resulting curves. Try it some time.

You seem to forget that when using calibration, each speaker gets calibrated separately at a separate time, they never get measured together. This dismisses the need for recalibration. If speakers would have gotten calibrated all at once, then I would agree, but that is not the fact. It seems you do not understand this part of calibration, the receiver knows what each speakers puts out at the 75dB point and if it knows there is no center speaker, it will know that fact and adapt the sounds that come out of the FL and FR speakers.
post #221 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johan81 View Post

You seem to forget that when using calibration, each speaker gets calibrated separately at a separate time, they never get measured together. This dismisses the need for recalibration. If speakers would have gotten calibrated all at once, then I would agree, but that is not the fact. It seems you do not understand this part of calibration, the receiver knows what each speakers puts out at the 75dB point and if it knows there is no center speaker, it will know that fact and adapt the sounds that come out of the FL and FR speakers.

The speakers and the room are a single acoustical system. Room calibration listens to the speaker in the room. Moving a speaker changes how the speaker sounds in the room. There is no way for the processor to know how that sounds without listening to it again.
post #222 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdclark View Post

The speakers and the room are a single acoustical system. Room calibration listens to the speaker in the room. Moving a speaker changes how the speaker sounds in the room. There is no way for the processor to know how that sounds without listening to it again.

Seems you have problems reading, you don't need to reposition your speakers for testing purposes, just disable the center and you can test them. I know I placed my FL and FR speakers, even though I have a center and love it, the right way that without a center they are perfectly placed if I wanted to use a phantom center and I would expect that everyone has it like that as the ideal setup is that the FL and FR are both at equal distance from the center.

If you would have read my first post about this even a little bit, you would have known. I get the feeling you react without knowing what you are responding on.
post #223 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdclark View Post

Whether you consider reference level per channel or in toto...
The concept of "reference level" is never considered in toto, always by channel (whether that channel is reproduced by a single speaker in a home theatre or an array of speakers in a commercial cinema). You're starting from a false premise when arguing that turning off the centre requires re-calibration.
post #224 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by sivadselim View Post

That's not what he asked about. A lossless codec should be treated identically to a lossy one. So if DRC is applied to lossy Dolby I would expect it to be applied to lossless Dolby. And if it's not applied to lossy DTS I would expect it to not be applied to lossless DTS.

But all he asked was whether the center channel info was re-routed identically with the lossless codecs. It is.

Might not be what he asked about.... it's what I asked about. because it's super relevant.
We can't assume that they didn't change the processing when they went from lossless codecs.
post #225 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by psgcdn View Post

Might not be what he asked about.... it's what I asked about. because it's super relevant.
We can't assume that they didn't change the processing when they went from lossless codecs.

Do I know for certain that the center channel info is rerouted identically whether the codec is lossy or lossless? No, but there is no reason to think that the invocation (or non-invocation, as the case may be) of DRC (or whatever it is) would be any different. No matter what, the center channel info is still split across the front channels, either way, which is all he was asking about.
post #226 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by sivadselim View Post

Do I know for certain that the center channel info is rerouted identically whether the codec is lossy or lossless? No, but there is no reason to think that the invocation (or non-invocation, as the case may be) of DRC (or whatever it is) would be any different. No matter what, the center channel info is still split across the front channels, either way, which is all he was asking about.
From the Dolby document library:

http://www.dolby.com/uploadedFiles/Assets/US/Doc/Professional/TrueHD_Tech_Paper_Final.pdf
Quote:
Channel Extensions, Downmixing, and Dolby TrueHD
One channel extension technique is the method by which MLP Lossless,
Dolby TrueHD, and MPEG-2 LII deliver compatible downmixes for
soundtracks with expanded channels. In these codecs, a 7.1-channel
soundtrack is first downmixed to create a 5.1 mix, which is supplemented
by a two-channel extension (which we’ll call “extension B”). The 5.1 mix
is then further downmixed to a two-channel stereo mix, and another
supplemental stream is created that carries the 3.1-channel “extension A.”
So the 7.1-channel program is delivered in three separate components: a two-
channel mix, the 3.1-channel extension A, and the two-channel extension B.
The total payload is still 7.1 channels, with preconfigured subsets to create
two-, 5.1-, and 7.1-channel presentations. If a listener desires a stereo
presentation, the decoder plays only the two-channel downmix, thereby
minimizing DSP resources for the simplest hardware products—a useful idea.
If a listener selects a 5.1 presentation, the decoder reconstructs it from the
two-channel downmix plus the 3.1-channel extension A substream by means
of rematrixing. If a listener wants a 7.1 presentation, the decoder reconstructs
it by rematrixing the reconstructed 5.1-channel program with the final two-
channel extension B substream.

This all works nicely—on paper. However, when used with lossy codecs
that rely on psychoacoustic principles such as noise masking, this rematrixing
can reveal coding artifacts that were otherwise inaudible. It’s not that the
coding artifacts have increased; instead, they become physically separated
from the sound that originally masked them. As a result, the main sound
and the coding artifacts may be directed to different loudspeakers, taking
different acoustic paths to the listener and resulting in a phenomenon called
“coder unmasking.”

It doesn't say how the center channel is handled when the user wants a phantom CC. We should ask Roger Dressler. I believe he authored that paper. I'll PM him and ask.

Craig

PS. Here's another with a section titled: Dolby Digital Evolves into Dolby Digital Plus http://www.dolby.com/uploadedFiles/Assets/US/Doc/Professional/DPlus_TrueHD_whitepaper.pdf Similar info but with flowcharts.
post #227 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by craig john View Post

It doesn't say how the center channel is handled when the user wants a phantom CC. We should ask Roger Dressler. I believe he authored that paper. I'll PM him and ask.

Realize that phantom center creation is NOT downmixing and is a function of the processor. How it is done is not dictated by any metadata (or whatever) in the original source material.
post #228 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by sivadselim View Post

Realize that phantom center creation is NOT downmixing and is a function of the processor. How it is done is not dictated by any metadata (or whatever) in the original source material.

confused.gif

http://www.dolby.com/uploadedFiles/Assets/US/Doc/Professional/18_Metadata.Guide.pdf
Quote:
Downmixing
Downmixing is a function of Dolby Digital that allows a multichannel program to be
reproduced over fewer speaker channels than the number for which the program is
optimally intended. Simply put, downmixing allows consumers to enjoy a DVD or
digital television broadcast without requiring a full-blown home theater setup

http://pacificav.com/library/Dolby%2051%20productions%20guidelines.pdf
Quote:
2.2 Downmixing
Downmixing has two frequently interrelated applications: format compatibility and
channel redirection, as described below.

2.2.1 Format Compatibility
Dolby Surround-compatible, stereo, and mono mixes are often created when
multichannel material is downmixed to fewer channels. It is important to check a
number of aspects of each downmix to confirm that it translates as closely as possible
to the original intent of the mix.
There are many consumers who will listen to Dolby Digital sources such as DVD or
DTV without having a full 5.1-channel Dolby Digital playback system. These
consumers will hear the two-channel analog or PCM outputs of their DVD players or
DTV set-top boxes through existing stereo or Dolby Surround Pro Logic systems. All
DVD-video players and DTV set-top boxes have the ability to create and deliver a
Dolby Surround compatible or stereo downmix from the two-channel analog or PCM
outputs. The DP562 Professional Reference Decoder can simulate what the consumer
will hear while listening in these modes.

Example 1: Using a properly calibrated 5.1-channel monitoring system (incorporating
appropriate bass management) set the DP562 to Dolby Digital and Full. In this
configuration, a 5.1-channel bitstream will reproduce all channels as a consumer with a
Dolby Digital 5.1-channel system will hear it. Pressing Pro Logicon the DP562
downmixes the five main channels (discarding the LFE channel) to a Dolby Surround-
compatible bitstream. The downmix is then Dolby Surround Pro Logic decoded
resulting in Left, Center, Right, and mono Surround channels at the outputs. Monitoring
in this mode simulates how a consumer will hear the 5.1-channel bitstream when
downmixed and then reproduced through a Dolby Surround Pro Logic system.

Example 2: With Pro Logic still engaged, select Stereo instead of Full in the Listening Mode
section. This mode provides for monitoring the way a consumer will hear the 5.1-channel
bitstream when downmixed and then reproduced through a stereo system.

Example 3: In addition to Dolby Surround (Lt/Rt) compatible downmixes, Lo/Ro
(Left only/Right only) downmixes can also be checked. Selecting Stereo mode
without Pro Logic engaged will create an Lo/Ro downmix at the outputs.

2.2.2 Channel Redirection
The ability to redirect channel information provides a means to account for the design
and number of speakers in the listening environment.
There will be consumers who may not have or can not use all 5.1 speakers with their
Dolby Digital decoder. Dolby Digital consumer decoders have the ability to redirect
or downmix decoded multichannel information such as a 5.1-channel soundtrack.

Example 1: Using a properly calibrated 5.1-channel monitoring system
(incorporating appropriate bass management), set the DP562 to
Dolby Digital/Full. In this configuration, a 5.1-channel bitstream will reproduce all channels the way a
consumer with a Dolby Digital 5.1-channel system will hear them. Pressing any of the other
Listening Modes causes the DP562 to redirect audio to the outputs of the
selected speaker configuration.

Example 2: Select 3 Stereo instead of Full in the Listening Mode section and the
Surround channel information is redirected to the Left and Right speakers to simulate
a monitoring system with no Surround speakers.

Example 3: Select Phantom Center and the Center channel information is appropriately attenuated
and redirected to the Left and Right speakers to simulate a multichannel monitoring system with no Center speaker.

Phantom Center Channel creation is absolutely a "downmixing" function. So is the "overload protection" that is employed with downmixing and Phantom CC creation:

http://www.dolby.com/uploadedFiles/Assets/US/Doc/Professional/18_Metadata.Guide.pdf
Quote:
In addition to the DRC profile, metadata can limit signal peaks to prevent clipping
during downmixing. This metadata, known as overload protection, is inserted by the
encoder only if necessary. For example, consider a 5.1-channel program with signals
at digital full-scale on all channels being played through a stereo, downmixed line- level output.
Without some form of attenuation or limiting, the output signal would obviously clip. Correct setting of the
Dialogue Level and DRC profiles normally prevents clipping and unnecessary application
of automatic overload protection.

I hope Roger chimes in to clear this up.

Craig
post #229 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by craig john View Post

Phantom Center Channel creation is absolutely a "downmixing" function.

No it isn't. wink.giftongue.gifbiggrin.gif
post #230 of 384
Hi All,

The problem with these things, DRC and downmixing, is that different playback devices/systems can implement them in different ways. Makes it hard to apply broad rules.

Downmixing is built in to the codecs so that no sound would be lost if an output is not available. This is what happens in a source device like STB, BD player...

In the case of an AVR, the codec's internal downmixing is typically ignored. This is to unify the process across all codecs and PCM sources. So after all the codecs are fully decoded to baseband PCM, there comes post-processing, downmixing (speaker management), and bass management.

For DRC, each codec has its own DRC strategy and options. DD has always had a basic capability. TrueHD has some additional capability. DTS content is often made with no DRC data. There are some AVRs that create DRC as a post-process regardless of the source codec, whether from their own algorithm, or they may use something from Audyssey or Dolby or the like.

Did I make things worse?
post #231 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by sivadselim View Post

That's not what he asked about. A lossless codec should be treated identically to a lossy one. So if DRC is applied to lossy Dolby I would expect it to be applied to lossless Dolby. And if it's not applied to lossy DTS I would expect it to not be applied to lossless DTS.

But all he asked was whether the center channel info was re-routed identically with the lossless codecs. It is.

Thanks - that is what I was looking for :-)

I also wonder if there are any differences in how processors handle phantom centers. My second processor ages ago was a Theta Casablanca II which had a special phantom center mode. But I can't imagine what it was doing other than the logical process of evenly sending the center channel audio to the mains. I suspect that this was a Theta peculiarity and that is all it was doing.

EDIT: I found the Casablanca manual on Theta's site and it actually has a neat additional feature that is likely very rare:
"b) When a speaker set is set to PHANTOM, its signal is not lost. For example, if the front center speaker is set
this way, any signal from the center channel will be routed to the front left/right speakers; if the surround
center speaker is set to PHANTOM, any signal routed there will be re-routed to the surround left/right
speakers. These re-routed signals can be adjusted in volume using the Phantom Level (PHLV) parameter.
Begin with the phantom level parameter at 0 and make fine adjustments after the setup is complete."

So you can adjust the level of the phantom center. Anyone seen this with any other processor?
Edited by sbradley02 - 11/27/13 at 9:17pm
post #232 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post

Hi All,

The problem with these things, DRC and downmixing, is that different playback devices/systems can implement them in different ways. Makes it hard to apply broad rules.

Downmixing is built in to the codecs so that no sound would be lost if an output is not available. This is what happens in a source device like STB, BD player...

In the case of an AVR, the codec's internal downmixing is typically ignored. This is to unify the process across all codecs and PCM sources. So after all the codecs are fully decoded to baseband PCM, there comes post-processing, downmixing (speaker management), and bass management.

For DRC, each codec has its own DRC strategy and options. DD has always had a basic capability. TrueHD has some additional capability. DTS content is often made with no DRC data. There are some AVRs that create DRC as a post-process regardless of the source codec, whether from their own algorithm, or they may use something from Audyssey or Dolby or the like.

Did I make things worse?

Thanks Roger. That makes things as clear as mud. biggrin.gif
post #233 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by psgcdn View Post

Might not be the same. I don't think it was for Doldy Digital and DTS on DVD. If not having a center enables DRC, then that's a huge reason to have a center.
I don't think engaging it is volume dependent as that processing is done way before a volume control. I doubt there's a feedback loop there.
3 speakers have a max combined SPL about 1.5db higher than two speakers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdclark View Post

Calibration is done at reference level. Remove a speaker, and the levels of the individual channels need to be raised in order for the total system to achieve reference level. This alone will change the optimizations for the mains. Not to mention that the CC speaker is contributing quite a lot to the overall frequency-response of the whole system, and removing it will change that curve.
On a 3-channel system, the center is <1.5db. On a 5 channel system, <1db. Etc.

As to "calibrated at reference". That's just silly. Are you claiming you never vary the volume nob from 0db, ever? Or are you claiming that doing so ruins your sound?

Of course: it's not like the processor doesn't know the center is gone either... You did set it to "none" after all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdclark View Post

Whether you consider reference level per channel or in toto, it will still produce higher levels from the main left and right speakers when playing multichannel material with a phantom center.
By less than 2db. It's a non-issue.
post #234 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerryLove View Post

3 speakers have a max combined SPL about 1.5db higher than two speakers.
Right. You need that headroom left if you are adding channels, thus the engaging of DRC on good old DD decoding with phantom centers on (the majority or?) receivers.
post #235 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdclark View Post

Calibration is done at reference level. Remove a speaker, and the levels of the individual channels need to be raised in order for the total system to achieve reference level.
There's no need to alter the gain calibrations whether there is a center or not.
Quote:
Not to mention that the CC speaker is contributing quite a lot to the overall frequency-response of the whole system, and removing it will change that curve.
If the L/C/R speakers are all tuned to the same frequency response, it will not matter which carries the sound into the room. The spectral energy will remain the same.
Quote:
The amount of toe-in for the mains could also be optimally different in a system with or without a CC speaker when there is one listener. This would also require recalibration.
Once the speakers are placed, they get calibrated. If a CC is present, I doubt anyone turns it on/off, unless one wants to explore the relative merits of a CC. But there is no question that without a CC, the sweet spot is much smaller, so one might change how the rest of the speaker are arranged and calibrated. In my case, I have dual calibrations, for me and for a group, with delays/levels altered accordingly.
post #236 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post

There's no need to alter the gain calibrations whether there is a center or not.
If the L/C/R speakers are all tuned to the same frequency response, it will not matter which carries the sound into the room. The spectral energy will remain the same.
Once the speakers are placed, they get calibrated. If a CC is present, I doubt anyone turns it on/off, unless one wants to explore the relative merits of a CC. But there is no question that without a CC, the sweet spot is much smaller, so one might change how the rest of the speaker are arranged and calibrated. In my case, I have dual calibrations, for me and for a group, with delays/levels altered accordingly.

I like the idea of multiple calibration settings...if only I had a prepro capable of doing something like that lol
post #237 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by psgcdn View Post

Right. You need that headroom left if you are adding channels, thus the engaging of DRC on good old DD decoding with phantom centers on (the majority or?) receivers.
Not very likely that you have sufficient SPL, but only by a margin less than 1.5db.Even if you did, it would only come into play when both the center and at least one of the other fronts was simultaneously at peak... so no, it's unlikely to be important.
post #238 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerryLove View Post

Not very likely that you have sufficient SPL, but only by a margin less than 1.5db.Even if you did, it would only come into play when both the center and at least one of the other fronts was simultaneously at peak... so no, it's unlikely to be important.

?

The decoder has to leave room to add signals. Unless it knows apriori that the mains and center have peaks below -1.5 dB of full scale on the whole disk, it's not going to guess on it. One way of doing that is engaging DRC. If I believed you, then there would be no reason for DD decoders to forcefully engage DRC when less than 5 channels are present; yet most do.
post #239 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by psgcdn View Post

The decoder has to leave room to add signals. Unless it knows apriori that the mains and center have peaks below -1.5 dB of full scale on the whole disk, it's not going to guess on it. One way of doing that is engaging DRC. If I believed you, then there would be no reason for DD decoders to forcefully engage DRC when less than 5 channels are present; yet most do.
You are just inventing stuff. Indeed: you are imagining problems, imagining behaviors to solve them, and then arguing that your own solutions to your own problems won't work. It's called a straw-man fallacy.

If, somehow, you were running the front 3 within 1.5db of limit, and you phantom the center, what you'll get is clipping (mechanical if you are at the end of driver extension and electrical if you are at the end of amp power). Look it up. If you get a little, you'll never notice. If you get a lot, then you already had problems a center will not solve.

Seriously though: this discussion is silly. Anyone closed-minded isn't gonna change their position: they will just keep rationalizing it.

To the open-minded: Don't believe any of us. It costs exactly nothing to try for yourselves; so go try it on any systems you can. Play around, have fun, and hear for yourselves.
post #240 of 384
Jerry, Peter, once again, there is truth to both of these seemingly conflicting positions. Please refer to my earlier post.

If the downmixing is done in the source (STB, BD, DVD player), then DD automatically applies DRC to protect the headroom. It has "one size fits all" protection, which is also the process used for "night mode." DD decoders do also support internal (decoder algorithm) downmixing without DRC, but in that case the levels are dropped several dB to protect worst case. This mode is rarely used.

In AVRs/processors, the DD DRC is not used to protect downmixing because it is done downstream of the various decoders. The same sort of gain scaling is applied digitally to protect from overflow. The signal levels are normalized in the analog domain by the volume control (unbeknownst to the end user).

smile.gif
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Speakers

Gear mentioned in this thread:

AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Speakers › Goodbye Center Channel