Why is 2 Channel better than multi-channel?

Yes, I agree that it's necessary to have first-hand experience with something prior to being able to debate it competently. However, I'm not in a position to assess with certainty whether or not any given Audiogon thread participant has such experience, unless I know that member personally, in which case we'd be unlikely to communicate in a public forum. In any case, since I myself lack such experience with multichannel sound, I should leave this discussion. I'll see you in a different thread.

One thing though, Dale Pitcher himself has told me that some people are using the Intuitive Design Summits for home theater, one person having relegated them to REAR CHANNEL duty (LOL!). I think that person has the $65,000 Denalis in the front. I've never heard those, so I can only speculate on how great they must be.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Cheers.

velocity,

The violin is a very musical instrument and it is not the same as the human voice enunciating words on the screen. If surround sound is all around us, as you claim then the point of owning a surround system becomes moot. Don't you agree?

Mdhoover,

7 IDS's with that Kimber crossover? would be quite good for a medium sized room. Imagine a soundfield that images the same way on everyside of the room, renderring the ambiance and image of far away concert right in your room!

I have designed many systems using speakers like your IDS's, imagine being completely emerssed In the IDS sound all 7 speakers acting as one, with all the dynamic range advantages of having 7 speakers and perfectly blended subwoofers versus just 2 speakers. I know it unfortunately costs more, but...

that example may just pull you a bit closer to what Eldartford and myself listen too. And help you imagine the minimum level of refinement I require to find a system competent.

Thanks for your thoughts too.

Landok,

"The violin is a very musical instrument and it is not the same as the human voice enunciating words on the screen."

...only in your mind, my speakers do both with no problem. Infact being able to do intelligable speech is a tough one for many highly regarded speakers. Not a good sign of good performance IMO.

"If surround sound is all around us, as you claim then the point of owning a surround system becomes moot."

I'd be interested in how you would arrive at that conclusion.

My original comment;

Fact is every moment of your everyday life is in surround why not play your music back that way?

This of course refers to the humans ability to discern sound 360 degrees naturally...and as some have mentioned above and below too. So I would say owning a surround system becomes essential not moot but i'd like to hear you input.

PS; my 7 channel music system doesn't have a screen.

velocity,

Thank you for your somewhat more benevolent tone. The reality of it all though is; how many listeners or devotees to multi channel sound have or will ever have a system like yours? You are talking about a near perfect if not totally perfect system which you are fortunate to own. The premise of the original debate I believe was based on a system that is more available to the masses. It would have been simpler if you had stated at the very begining that there is a system that is way beyond the mainstream surround system and you happen to own it, instead of vociferously proclaiming that you have a better system. Thank you for giving me some insight into your professionalism, expertise and your passion for recreating a perfect sound in the home environment.