ARCHIVED FORUM -- March 2012 to February 2022READ ONLY FORUM
This is the second Archived Forum which was active between 1st March 2012 and 23rd February 2022
Flere: In appendix 8 of the BL50 Technical Sound Guide it says the BL50 can be controlled by the BeoRemoteOne via connecting an IR-eye to the BL50.
In appendix 8 of the BL50 Technical Sound Guide it says the BL50 can be controlled by the BeoRemoteOne via connecting an IR-eye to the BL50.
Could you please link to this guide/appendix - I am not able to find it anywhere.
MM
There is a tv - and there is a BV
Millemissen: Flere: In appendix 8 of the BL50 Technical Sound Guide it says the BL50 can be controlled by the BeoRemoteOne via connecting an IR-eye to the BL50. Could you please link to this guide/appendix - I am not able to find it anywhere. MM
It is a very interesting document.
Normal 0 21 false false false EN-GB JA X-NONE https://www.bang-olufsen.com/~/mediaV3/Home/Collection/Collection-speakers/BeoLab-50/bang-olufsen-beolab50-whitepaper-v3.pdf
- Flere
smile and enjoy the moment
Thanks - one learns something every day ;-)
Nice to see, that they still work on ir for controlling things.
This option seems somewhat limited, since there are no sources built-in to the BL50's.
Selecting inputs and controlling the volume is ok, though.
Would be nice to have a combination of a BS Core connected through DPL to the BL50 master speaker and controlled via an ir eye connected to the Core....
....but that is a different story.
Flere:So my questions are: Is this IR-eye the same one as for the BeoSound Essence MK2 ? Is this functionality already implemented in the BL50 It reads: Note that, in order to control the BeoLab 50’s with the BeoRemote 1, two things must initially be configured. Firstly, the infra-red receiver (also known as an “IR Eye”) must be correctly connected to the Master BeoLab 50. Secondly, the BeoRemote 1 must be set to the “BeoSound” product on its display. In addition, the BeoLab 50 must be “paired” to the BeoSound product (since there are multiple BeoSound options). What is the "correct" connection ?
Is this IR-eye the same one as for the BeoSound Essence MK2 ?
Is this functionality already implemented in the BL50
It reads:
Note that, in order to control the BeoLab 50’s with the BeoRemote 1, two things must initially be configured. Firstly, the infra-red receiver (also known as an “IR Eye”) must be correctly connected to the Master BeoLab 50. Secondly, the BeoRemote 1 must be set to the “BeoSound” product on its display. In addition, the BeoLab 50 must be “paired” to the BeoSound product (since there are multiple BeoSound options).
What is the "correct" connection ?
The IR eye is a standard Beolink IR eye with an RJ45 connect. It and the Mic share the same socket iirc. Enables BR1 operation and possibly Beo4??
Optional extras from your Dealer if your BL90/BL50 is stand-alone and not connected to an Audio/video master I.e 3rd party sources.
When testing a configuration issue between the Avant 55 and BL90, my Dealers installation team tested a standard BEolink IR. Plug in and play.
Mikipedia:I didn't get a mic with mine, i think it might be an extra cost with the 50's. But i'll ask my dealer, i think he does sell them. The mic is the same though as the one shown, my dealer set them up etc with that mic.
Page 14 in the technical sound guide
"The distance from the listening position to each BeoLab 50 can be measured automatically using the microphone included with the loudspeaker."
I had a visit to B&O showroom and listened to thr BL50s..
What can I say, a huge disappointment. Not because they didn't perform well, but because they outperformed my BL20s and where years ahead. They sound absolutely terrific and I am ashamed to say that I prefer these over the BL90s which I found overwhelming.
The 50s are more expensive than the 20s but for the price difference, the improvement and sound quality is insane.
Hello Geoff
Looks like u have good knowledge so hoping you can help me out.
I have little to zero knowledge of sound and the related technologies. I just like music. I am getting the BeoLab 50's and a BeoShape . These will be in a one large space. One end is bar / pub setup and the other end is lounge . Is approx 20 m x 7 m - opens onto patios on either side. That info is so i can get to my questions.
1. can i connect a Samsung tv via optical out to the above speakers. Either all (BEO 50's and Shape) or just to the 50's. Can i also connect other inputs such as blu ray dvd directly and also via the TV?
2. Can i connect directly to speakers via blue tooth - this for easy access for guests .
3. Would an apple tv connect and make life easier so connect via airplay to speakers - again either all or just 50's or just shape.
4. Will have apple computer with itunes in study - would also like to have that connect to speakers. Is it best to connect on wifi or connect via cables.
5. What is best wireless connection for above - best in terms of ease if use and then sound quality. Will have ethernet and wifi available. As noted also apple TV.
Generally looking for very easy streaming and connectivity options. The local guys don't seem to be experts and are not 100% sure on the above. Since we are building the house i can choose where to put the speakers and can have conduit installed si that we can put in any cables needed such as optical.
Sorry - long question/s.
Regards
Peter
New: Beovision Harmony, Beolab 50's, Beolab 28's, Beolab 18's, Beolab 17's, Beosound Stage & LG, Beosound 2, Beoplay M3, Beoplay A1, Beoplay Portal, Beoplay H4 gen 2, Beoplay E8 3.0
Mikipedia on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/Mikipedia
Mikipedi4 on Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/mikipedi4
Mikipedia on Intagram: https://www.instagram.com/mikipedi4/
Old: Beosound 9000 mk3, Beolab 3's, Beovision Eclipse, Beolab 1's, Beolab 2, Beovision 10-46, Overture 2300, beolab 8000's, Beolab 4000's, Beovision avant 32" etc. etc.
Btw, i made an overview video and posted it on YouTube. If anybody has any request for music to record, i'll be happy to do so :)
Hi Peter,
Sorry it took a while to respond - I'm on a mission to spend less time looking at a screen, and BeoWorld is one of the casualties...
You have many questions... I can answer some of them quickly, but some of them require longer discussions, best had with a dealer...
I'll focus my answers on BeoLab 50 - the answers are different for BeoSound Shape (assuming that you have a BeoSound Core included with it).
clemen: Page 14 in the technical sound guide "The distance from the listening position to each BeoLab 50 can be measured automatically using the microphone included with the loudspeaker."
Hi Clemen,
Please note that that sentence is still in grey - indicating that this feature is not yet implanted in the software.
Cheers
-geoff
oops.... make that "implemented" not "implanted"...
cheers
-g
Looking at the spec of the Beolab 50 I wonder about three things:
Vähintään yhdeksänkymmentä prosenttia suomalainen!
Thank you for reply Geoff. Getting better idea of how to setup.
beocool: Looking at the spec of the Beolab 50 I wonder about three things: The frequency range of the Beolab 50 is bigger than that of the Beolab 5. Yet the Beolab 5 was a 4 way system and the Beolab 50 only has 3 frequency ranges. Why then is the frequency range bigger? Has there been great progress in drivers or is is down to digital processing? The acoustic lens was abandoned for the Beolab 90. Why is it still in use on the Beolab 50? If more drivers give better performance. then it wouldn't have been much that more difficult to include a certain number of smaller tweeters, would it? Why are all the internal amplifiers rated at the same output? I would expect the bass drivers to take most of the power. Is is that from a production point of view it's easier to use the same amplifier?
Hi BeoCool,
1. The answer to your first question can be both simple or complicated... The simple version is "The Frequency range of a BeoLab loudspeaker is, more or less, whatever we want it to be." This is because the frequency range is (ignoring any level-dependent changes, which do, indeed, exist) is a product of the sound design - the linear frequency / power response of the loudspeaker at lower listening levels. If the listening level were low enough, we could make a 1" tweeter have a wider frequency range than a BeoLab 90 - it just wouldn't be able to play as loudly... The more complicated question involves the non-linear behaviour of the loudspeaker (either intentional or unintentional), since the frequency range varies with level. I've tried to explain this (more or less reasonably well...) on my website here: http://www.tonmeister.ca/wordpress/2014/10/15/bo-tech-reading-specifications-part-1/
2. Of course, it would have been possible to include more tweeters in the BeoLab 50 - to be more like the BeoLab 90. However, speaking from a purely quantitive perspective, this would have also meant more amplifiers, more DAC's and more processing. There is also the questions of design and intention. From an acoustical perspective, the movable lens in the BeoLab 50 performs as well as the multiple tweeters in the BeoLab 90 for its intended direcitivites (a.k.a. beam widths), so it's incorrect to say that "more drivers give better performance" - depending on how you define "performance".
3. The ratings of amplifiers in BeoLab loudspeakers are given in "watts" merely to make them familiar in the marketing materials. From a the point of view of a developer, the number of watts an amplifier can deliver is very nearly irrelevant. Instead, we look at whether an amplifier can deliver the required voltage swing to a loudspeaker driver's terminals - and whether it (and the power supply) can subsequently deliver the required current, as defined by the voltage and the load impedance. So, we choose an amplifier for a given loudspeaker & driver according to the voltage and current it can provide (which would allow you to calculate its power - but more on that below...) and other factors such as noise floor, distortion characteristics, and so on. So, if the amps deliver what we need, and it makes more sense for other reasons to use the same amplifiers for all drivers, then this is the smartest solution.
In other words, at no point do we say "we're going to need a 350 W amp on this driver". Instead, we say "we'll seen to swing the voltage by 'A' volts on an 'B'-ohm driver which will result in a requirement of 'C' amps for 'D' milliseconds before things get to 'E' degrees on the voice coil and we have to pull back by 'F' dB at 'G' Hz..."
Another, perhaps easier way to see that the power rating of an amplifier is (nearly) useless information is to compare two 1000 W amplifiers: Amp "A" can deliver 10 V and 100 Amps (10*100 = 1000 W) whereas Amp "B" can deliver 100 V at 10 Amps (100*10 = 1000 W). Therefore these are both 1 kW amplifiers, but they will behave very, very differently...
Hope this helps.
Geoff Martin: beocool: Looking at the spec of the Beolab 50 I wonder about three things: The frequency range of the Beolab 50 is bigger than that of the Beolab 5. Yet the Beolab 5 was a 4 way system and the Beolab 50 only has 3 frequency ranges. Why then is the frequency range bigger? Has there been great progress in drivers or is is down to digital processing? The acoustic lens was abandoned for the Beolab 90. Why is it still in use on the Beolab 50? If more drivers give better performance. then it wouldn't have been much that more difficult to include a certain number of smaller tweeters, would it? Why are all the internal amplifiers rated at the same output? I would expect the bass drivers to take most of the power. Is is that from a production point of view it's easier to use the same amplifier? Hi BeoCool, 1. The answer to your first question can be both simple or complicated... The simple version is "The Frequency range of a BeoLab loudspeaker is, more or less, whatever we want it to be." This is because the frequency range is (ignoring any level-dependent changes, which do, indeed, exist) is a product of the sound design - the linear frequency / power response of the loudspeaker at lower listening levels. If the listening level were low enough, we could make a 1" tweeter have a wider frequency range than a BeoLab 90 - it just wouldn't be able to play as loudly... The more complicated question involves the non-linear behaviour of the loudspeaker (either intentional or unintentional), since the frequency range varies with level. I've tried to explain this (more or less reasonably well...) on my website here: http://www.tonmeister.ca/wordpress/2014/10/15/bo-tech-reading-specifications-part-1/ 2. Of course, it would have been possible to include more tweeters in the BeoLab 50 - to be more like the BeoLab 90. However, speaking from a purely quantitive perspective, this would have also meant more amplifiers, more DAC's and more processing. There is also the questions of design and intention. From an acoustical perspective, the movable lens in the BeoLab 50 performs as well as the multiple tweeters in the BeoLab 90 for its intended direcitivites (a.k.a. beam widths), so it's incorrect to say that "more drivers give better performance" - depending on how you define "performance". 3. The ratings of amplifiers in BeoLab loudspeakers are given in "watts" merely to make them familiar in the marketing materials. From a the point of view of a developer, the number of watts an amplifier can deliver is very nearly irrelevant. Instead, we look at whether an amplifier can deliver the required voltage swing to a loudspeaker driver's terminals - and whether it (and the power supply) can subsequently deliver the required current, as defined by the voltage and the load impedance. So, we choose an amplifier for a given loudspeaker & driver according to the voltage and current it can provide (which would allow you to calculate its power - but more on that below...) and other factors such as noise floor, distortion characteristics, and so on. So, if the amps deliver what we need, and it makes more sense for other reasons to use the same amplifiers for all drivers, then this is the smartest solution. In other words, at no point do we say "we're going to need a 350 W amp on this driver". Instead, we say "we'll seen to swing the voltage by 'A' volts on an 'B'-ohm driver which will result in a requirement of 'C' amps for 'D' milliseconds before things get to 'E' degrees on the voice coil and we have to pull back by 'F' dB at 'G' Hz..." Another, perhaps easier way to see that the power rating of an amplifier is (nearly) useless information is to compare two 1000 W amplifiers: Amp "A" can deliver 10 V and 100 Amps (10*100 = 1000 W) whereas Amp "B" can deliver 100 V at 10 Amps (100*10 = 1000 W). Therefore these are both 1 kW amplifiers, but they will behave very, very differently... Hope this helps. Cheers -geoff
Thanks for the elaborate answer Geoff I'll read up on the link you included in your answer tomorrow.
Flere:Does anybody have experience with Auralic Aries G2 driving a BL50 via USB?
Hi Flere,
Until the BL50 supports 44.1/88.2/176.4 kHz on the USB-Audio input, you should use the S/P-DIF (Coax) connection instead.
Cheers- geoff
Geoff Martin:Hi Flere, Until the BL50 supports 44.1/88.2/176.4 kHz on the USB-Audio input, you should use the S/P-DIF (Coax) connection instead. Cheers - geoff
Flere: Hi Geoff I have read that you use a Mac for testing and I have read that Mac USB works for the BL90. I assume I can also drive the BL50 via USB from an Apple Mac ?
Hi Geoff
I have read that you use a Mac for testing and I have read that Mac USB works for the BL90.
I assume I can also drive the BL50 via USB from an Apple Mac ?
I do use a Mac for testing, but this is primarily due to SW and not Hardware (I use many different hardware paths to the loudspeakers when I'm doing the sound design.)
The Mac USB-Audio connection to the BL90 does work, contingent on the settings in your playback software and System Preferences. This is because, the BL90 "tells" the source (in this case, the Mac) that it supports 48/96/192 kHz on USB-Audio, and so the Mac does the required sampling rate conversion. So, in this case, the audio is sent to the loudspeaker at a compatible sampling rate. This raises the question of the sampling rate converter quality in the audio path in the Mac. This quality is different for different playback software.
I believe that your original question was in regards to Auralic. I have tested BL90 with an original Auralic Aries and USB-Audio. Initially, this worked very well because the Aries also did the appropriate sampling rate conversion. However, there was a firmware update from Auralic some time ago that disabled the sampling rate conversion which means that it will not work with the BL90, using USB-Audio, for incompatible sampling rates. However, since the BL90 S/P-DIF input does support 44.1x sampling rates, then this is the appropriate path to use, and it works fine.
Although I have not tested the bit-accuracy of the Auralic Aries, assuming that it is sending the correct bits out the USB-Audio and S/P-DIF outputs, there will be no difference in sound quality between these two transmission formats.
The BL50 and the BL90 have exactly the same input stages (except that the BL50 lacks an XLR input) so all of this is also true for the 50.
Hope this helps!
- geoff
Geoff Martin:However, since the BL90 S/P-DIF input does support 44.1x sampling rates, then this is the appropriate path to use, and it works fine.
Flere: Hi Geoff Thank you a lot for the interesting and useful information. Can you maybe reflect on the difference between the optical and the S/P-DIF connection for the BL50? Does this matter?
Thank you a lot for the interesting and useful information.
Can you maybe reflect on the difference between the optical and the S/P-DIF connection for the BL50? Does this matter?
If:
Then there will be no difference between using the Optical and Coax inputs on the BeoLab 90 or 50. This is because of a number of reasons, however, the principal one is that the actual bits contained in the two transmission paths are identical. Both carry an S/P-DIF protocol.
If the sampling rate is higher than 96 kHz (therefore 176.4 or 192 kHz), then the Optical digital input on the BeoLab 90/50 is disabled - so you can only use the Coax input. This is a decision that is made deliberately, not only by Bang & Olufsen, but by many manufacturers. The reason is that the diodes that are generating the light in an optical digital output are frequently unable (in many devices) to switch on and off reliably well to deliver an error-free signal. So, we, like many manufacturers prefer to deliver no signal than a "dirty" signal.
Note that in the "old days" many professionals preferred to use wired S/P-DIF (or AES/EBU - they're almost identical with respect to coding...) instead of Optical for a different reason. In those days, the receiving device probably clocked to the incoming digital signal and probably had a PLL with a short time constant (so it could lock to that clock quickly). As a result, the receiving device was prone to higher levels of jitter (frequency modulation) if it was difficult to determine the clock signal in the incoming data. Since the slew rate of the LED's in those days was less-than-impressive, the onset of the on/off transitions was difficult to detect accurately - and the result was jitter at the output of the receiving device.
Nowadays, things are probably different. For example, the BeoLab 90/50, like many modern digital audio receivers, uses not only a PLL, but a sampling rate converter to attenuate the jitter of an incoming digital audio signal. This alleviates the problems caused by "slow" LED's in the optical digital signal (in case you're connecting a 30-year old CD player to a BeoLab 90, for example....)
Hi again,
I just re-read what I wrote and I realise that there is one ambiguous statement there. I said:
"The reason is that the diodes that are generating the light in an optical digital output are frequently unable (in many devices) to switch on and off reliably well to deliver an error-free signal."
I should have said
"The reason is that the diodes that are generating the light in an optical digital output are frequently unable (in many devices) to switch on and off quickly enough to reliably deliver an error-free signal at higher sampling rates."
That's a bit more truth-y.... :-)
I finally had a chance to hear the Beolab 50s in the B&O shop in New York at the weekend and I have to say, I was a little disappointed. Yes, they look fabulous and the bass was superb, but the midrange seemed recessed, making vocals vague and fairly indistinct. The treble was also a little too soft for my liking.
On the upside, I asked them to play the Beolab 90s whilst we were there, which sounded as utterly spellbinding as ever. Even more amusingly, we were there with friends, one of whom is a former colleague from my loudspeaker design days and who loves his music and hi-fi, but has always been a B&O cynic.
Well, the track started on the Lab 90s, which was a female jazz singer, and he turned to me with a big grin on his face and said "Unbelievable - it's like she's standing right in front of me".
AdamS:I finally had a chance to hear the Beolab 50s in the B&O shop in New York at the weekend and I have to say, I was a little disappointed. Yes, they look fabulous and the bass was superb, but the midrange seemed recessed, making vocals vague and fairly indistinct. The treble was also a little too soft for my liking. On the upside, I asked them to play the Beolab 90s whilst we were there, which sounded as utterly spellbinding as ever. Even more amusingly, we were there with friends, one of whom is a former colleague from my loudspeaker design days and who loves his music and hi-fi, but has always been a B&O cynic. Well, the track started on the Lab 90s, which was a female jazz singer, and he turned to me with a big grin on his face and said "Unbelievable - it's like she's standing right in front of me".
Adam - I was also at the New York showroom a few weeks ago and had the exact same impression vis-a-vis the BL50 and BL90. I suspect the issues with the BL50 is that the staff did not set up the BL50 properly for the room, and second the music source (from the TV) was poor I was told they dd not have any high resolution music to demo with on the BL50 (whereas they did on the BL90). Everyone here says the sound in amazing, so i was very surprised by the results. On top of that the speaker casing was full of fingerprints and looked somewhat dirty, which left me with an overall poor impression. My BL1+BL19 combo had a better sound.
BV11-55, BS9000, BL1, BL19, Transmitter 1, Beo4, Beocom 6000, BeoTalk1 200, Sennheiser HD600, McIntosh MHA100
Thanks for the comments, guys - I must confess I was a little surprised to hear such a difference as I was expecting the 50s to be similar to the 90s in overall character. The fact that they were so different does suggest something may have been awry, so I shall remain open-minded until I hear another pair.
The comment about the condition of the speakers in the NY showroom is also interesting, as I also thought they looked a bit grubby!
AdamS:I finally had a chance to hear the Beolab 50s in the B&O shop in New York at the weekend and I have to say, I was a little disappointed. Yes, they look fabulous and the bass was superb, but the midrange seemed recessed, making vocals vague and fairly indistinct. The treble was also a little too soft for my liking.On the upside, I asked them to play the Beolab 90s whilst we were there, which sounded as utterly spellbinding as ever. Even more amusingly, we were there with friends, one of whom is a former colleague from my loudspeaker design days and who loves his music and hi-fi, but has always been a B&O cynic.Well, the track started on the Lab 90s, which was a female jazz singer, and he turned to me with a big grin on his face and said "Unbelievable - it's like she's standing right in front of me".
.
Present: BL90, Core, BL6000, CD7000, Beogram 7000, Essence Remote.
Past: BL1, BL2, BL8000, BS9000, BL5, BC2, BS5, BV5, BV4-50, Beosystem 3, BL3, DVD1, Beoremote 4, Moment.
Regarding the BL 50 Vs. BL 90, there is no question that BL 90 are one of a kind speakers in the world. I would even dare say that there is nothing out there to best them, irrespective of the price. If I could, I would have bought the BL 90 but BL 50 took me a great distance to that BL 90 performance at a price that I could afford and even more importantly, space that I have.
When I get back into the home ownership again at some point in future, I will revisit the BL 90. Until then BL 50 is my BL 90
Mikipedia - I cannot recall exactly but i think they were streaming from Spotify via one of the TVs. These speakers are close the $40K here and I cannot see the store being able to sell any based on the poor demo and overall appearance of the speakers. It has always been hit and miss with this store in their ability to properly demo products.
wow that's very sad to hear because they're amazing speakers. i was thinking about the difference between the bl50's and bl90's when propperly set up and i came up with an analogy that may be a bit odd. When you listen to, let say nora jones on the bl50's it's like she's 3-4 feet away from you, but when you listen to the bl90's it's like you're slow-dancing with her while she's performing. i mean to say that there is definately a difference, the bl90's are more intimate, but it's nowhere near as big a gap as let's say the gap is between the bl5's and bl20/bl9's. the bl50's are just that good.
i often put my setup in bl'50 mode and i can't tell up to about a bit less than a foot away from the eclipse that there is no center channel playing. the stereo imaging is that good when propperly set up.
Mikipedia: i often put my setup in bl'50 mode and i can't tell up to about a bit less than a foot away from the eclipse that there is no center channel playing. the stereo imaging is that good when propperly set up. New: Beolab 50's, Beolab 18's, Beovision eclipse. Mikipedi4 on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0WLHXZuA1GANMzYcAn5_xg Old: Beolab 1's, beolab 2, beovision 10-46, overture 2300, beolab 8000's, beolab 4000's, beovision avant 32" etc. etc.
Beovision 7-55 MK1 red, Beolab 10 red. Beolab 50, all black. Beolab 17 broken ice. Beolab transmitter. Apple tv4 and apple express 2.
@Mikipedia
This goes not only for the 50/90’s - it is rather common for all speakers.......when you sit dead center.
The problem however, is that you seldom do that respectively not for long.
And if you are more than just yourself aitting in that money seat, you certainly are going to miss the center channel (with video content/2 channel audio source).
A B&O tv has been able to upmix a 2.0/2.1 source to 3.0/3.1 for ages exactly for that reason.
Mikipedia: Secondly, no it’s not. I did not say that this was the case for every instance. Anything propperly mixed in 5.x you will deffiantely have more spacial awareness with the center joining in. But if you watch any sort of regular tv (mixed in 2.0)you honestly can not tell the sound isn’t coming from where the tv is up to about 6” or so away from the tv. I’ve blind tested this on my girlfriend and Iasked her to do the same for me. It has fooled me several times, i can tell at the point when i lower my head to the level of the soundcenter and then get between 6” to a foot away and listening with one ear. A friend of mine does the same with his bl90’s and leaves the center channel off at all times. I don’t do this though for movies.
Secondly, no it’s not.
I did not say that this was the case for every instance. Anything propperly mixed in 5.x you will deffiantely have more spacial awareness with the center joining in. But if you watch any sort of regular tv (mixed in 2.0)you honestly can not tell the sound isn’t coming from where the tv is up to about 6” or so away from the tv. I’ve blind tested this on my girlfriend and Iasked her to do the same for me. It has fooled me several times, i can tell at the point when i lower my head to the level of the soundcenter and then get between 6” to a foot away and listening with one ear. A friend of mine does the same with his bl90’s and leaves the center channel off at all times. I don’t do this though for movies.
Spot on. From the analog days there was always a phantom center surround effect. Today with DSP you can split the original channels into an unlimited effect. Even my late BV11 had about 20 options. When 3 of us and the cat watch films in 2 channel everybody is happy, even those not in the King's spot. That is because the world's best DSP is in our brain and it makes corrections for the room and it's own imperfections. Then there is Psychoacoustics, and even the mastering of the original to the what goes to Sky or Netflix or whomever and what they do with it. Better off having a drink and just enjoying it.
@Millemissen
I rarely sit in the sweet spot, I usually sit on the left of center in my comfy chair and still have a very hard time telling there is no center. When I set the speakers up I calibrated them for left, center and right seating positions. So in other words I did partially calibrate them for the position I sit in most, the tweeters are in wide mode like this and, when they work properly, they do a magnificent job at stereo imaging even fairly far of center.
@poodleboy
I do agree, however the bl50/90's do perform some magic tricks with sound somehow :p
now let's have that drink together ;)