Multi channel much better than stereo?

At this point I feel it is apperant that nothing anyone says will be taken to heart by 'urban', IMO. And feel continuing this thread would be a waste of everyones time, IMO. So I encourage no one else humor this clown, IMO.

urban, yer idea of having two separate systems has too many wariables as presented, to be able to draw any conclusions.

1st of all, what exactly do ya mean by "multi-channel"? a h-t set-up is vastly different than one designed for audio, w/ambient-room info as the only program material used for the *other* channels. and, afaik, the audio unit i have is s.o.t.a. for that type of multi-channel audio-only processing, & it's now almost 10-year-old technology. like it or not, (& i happen *not* to like it), audio-surround has wirtually disappeared from the market-place - anyone know anything different? that said, i'm conwinced that multi-channel optimized for audio will absolutely crush multi-channel optimized for h-t, even tho the h-t processing technology is current technology. i'm talking of listening to *music*, of course.

whether or not audio-designed multi-channel will sound better than 2-channel is wery dependent on the music chosen, imho. for example, my re-mastered winyl copy of little feat's live *waitin' for columbus* sounds great w/my surround-processor engaged, set to "outdoor pawillion". but, patricia barbour's *cafe blue* sounds much better w/the processing off then when set to "yazz club" on the processor. to try & cross-compare, little feat sounds better w/*no* processing than patricia barbour sounds *with* processing. then again, my room, at ~25x38, is *great* for 2-channel; smaller rooms wood prolly benefit more from multi-channel ambient processing...

bottom line for me - if i had to choose between *always* using my processor, or *never* using it, it'd yust have to go away! ;~) as far as h-t surround goes, well, it's not an issue for me, as i don't like watching movies. but there's *no way* i'd *ever* run 2-channel audio thru a multi-channel h-t set-up - i'd either have 2 separate systems, or run my h-t processor thru a bypass loop now so commonly awailable on top-line 2-channel preamps. (gee, if audio is so good thru multi-channel h-t, i wonder why these by-pass loops are becoming so popular on all these audiophile preamps?!?) ;~)

regards, doug

Actually, Urban may be onto something, though it's going to work against him in a way. In my circle of friends there are those who appreciate my two-channel system and others that don't get it. These exist in varying shades of gray. On one end is the guy who claims to only hear sound coming out of the speakers. He perceives no sound stage, no positioning of performers, no layers, etc. That he lost a portion of his hearing in one ear in an industrial accident is part of the problem. Another, more learned friend, and the one who appreciates the system does almost as much as myself has a hypotheis on this phenomenon. He has suggested that some people simply don't have the capacity to process data from two sources and put it back together to create a whole. Logically this makes sense and seemed pertinent given the nature of this discussion.

Sedond and fpeel have a valid point. And Urban also with the IMO remark(he is right, cause I'm writting this so it is my IMO). You can have your cake and eat it to. By setting up your ht to be 2channel, hence 2 system, being the reason for the by-pass loops that doug mentioned. Not to offend you Urban(which I don't need to say, because my remark may have that affect as offending you but hopeful not; like you said were hear to learn from each other). The ht processor will give you great ht enjoyment and okay music, but by using a preamp with a by-pass loop you get 2 systems in one. A good preamp solid or tube(I prefer tube) gives you great 2ch audio. You get depth, soundstage, clean, clear, dimentional music that a ht processor just can't do. I don't think they make a ht processor that can bring 2ch alive, like the musicans are right in the room with you. A good 2ch and I will say it; preamp tube will just blow the hole multi away. You just have to find one that gives surenegy to those speakers. And the right amp to match with the pre. So the price of a good pre will acomplish this. In 2ch, cause the system is so well balanced, room (which you will be having soon; you said you were building one) room very important and much over looked. Give the speakers room to breath(nothing behind them, check out the cardas.com website for room setup. With all this setup correctly you 2ch should sound like its playing in surround. So with that said, let 2ch pre's and ht processors do what they are ment to do. If your 2ch pre doesn't do better than your ht proc, than you need to search for that magical pre that will. Good luck Pete

Pcc question? I don't understand, why do I need another pre-amp ? I have read so many reviews that stated, refering to my AVP, that in order to get a better pre-amp for "Stereo" I would need to spend upwards of $15,000. That was the main reason for purchasing the AVP. Maybe I am mis-understanding. Today I sat down for some critical listening, trying to see your point of views, I could never keep track of whether or not I was in 2ch or 5 ch. In two ch. you swear the rears and center are on. If you separate those front speakers by more than 6' it sounds just alittle better in 5 ch. (I always keep the speakers away from back wall, critical with ML's and most speakers.) Listened to Roy Orbison today and could help but thinking wow his new DVD would make all the "Stereo folks" go crazy. The sound on this DVD is astounding !!! I did not feel like I was in the audience, I felt like I was on stage !!! Un-believable !!! I sure wish the non-believers could hear what I'm hearing.