Pick your poison...2-channel or multi?

Let me help out a little with this thread,

First of all if you want a mediocre surround system, build it from the left and right speakers. Its not how you do it. You can sell it that way but you don't design it that way. The processor is almost as important as the speakers, yes really.

Strabo don't be so cryptic, what was your $6K surround system? And what is your $10K 2 channel system?
I think that could be quite enlightening to us and help us understand your experience.

BTW when people refer to rear and side channels as "Gadgets" and thinks their listening room can effectively be used to create surround...you're not going to be able to explain anything, you will just have to wait until they have an experience like your's CD.

I think with these kind of threads you get more information on the wrong way to do things than the correct way. Simply the wrong approaches mentioned above. They sound "logical" but they don't work out at all. Which is why the ones explaining all the obstacles to surround in the end say two channel. Hmmm, now that's the only thing that makes sense to me :)

CDWallace,

I'm not opposed to multichannel. This thread posed the question that if you had $10,000 to spend, would you choose to spend it on a 2-channel system or a multichannel system. At that price point, I feel that the money would be best spent getting the best pair of speakers, amp, preamp, and CD/source affordable at that budget. Because for a multichannel system at that pricepoint, I'd probably be looking at a great AV receiver, 5 speakers plus a sub, and a DVD player which IMHO would not satisfy my high-end listening needs...whereas a 2-channel system at that price could probably get me some nice separates, full range high end speakers, and a nice source.

If the question was "if you had $50,000, which would you choose", I might go for the multichannel system. Because at that budget, I feel like I could get the level of components that would satisfy my high end needs.

And before anyone jumps on me, I do realize that its more than just about the quality of the components...it's about synergy, setup, room acoustics, and all the other stuff that makes this hobby fun. My response is with all that stuff being equal...

Cinematic_systems, sorry, didn't know I needed to be verified.

I jumped into MC early (1992?) with a Pro-logic system centered around Klipsch Forte II's (bought new)and various center and surround speakers (read: tried different things over 10 years time).

Bit by the upgrade bug to go dedicated surround a few years ago with a Denon 4802. That lasted a week before being returned.

Picked up an entry level Sony SACD/DVD player for a new digital source.
Upgraded to an Anthem AVM-20 and PVA-5,
then a Lexicon NT-512 before trying tubes for the mains.
Used Quicksilver KT-88 monos for a short time. Liked it for low level listing, Sold.
Tried a SuperAmp DJH version. Sold.
Upgraded the speakers to Sonus Faber GP Homes with Solo center and Wall surrounds.
Then picked up a VAC PA100/100.
Added a Denon-3910 Universal player.

Currently using the Anthem, VAC combo to run the mains and I love it. Lost interest in listening to MC so I rearanged the listening room for two channel and sold the rears.

I did keep the Solo (center) to widen the sweet spot for movie night. It's powered by the PVA-5 the once a month (maybe) it is used. Not bad using a 5 channel amp to power a center speaker. :)

I sometimes do miss the rear channels for movies but not at all for music. I did try the center with a couple of three channel recording (JT - Hourglass SACD comes to mind) but for the trouble, I'll take the stereo version.

Does that help? :)

Philnyc...your even more an enthusiest than I imagined. Thanks for explaining your thoughts even though your really didn't have to. Please excuss the spontanious venting, but it really irks me to here "MC is not for audiophiles" or MC is a joke when most audiophiles really haven't heard what MC is supposed to sound like.

Keeping all things equal I can understand how you may have come to your conclusion. IME I recently heard a $6k MC system that competed with a $14K 2-channel system that a local audioshop is selling. I won't name any names, but they're household named companies amongst audiophiles. You'd be supprised if you had the chance to audition. And heres the kicker...get ready to call me crazy and a novice! The $6k system....based around Cambridge Audio gear. No, it ain't high end, but it was rather convincingly close. I'm sure there are other components that would run circles around the Cambridge. But hey, this is what was considered to be the bottom of the totem pole. The systems just get better from there.

I'm presently making arrangements to here the upgraded versions of the system. When I give them a listen, I'll definately fill you in.

Absolutely!:)

Funny thing unlike many, you pretty much own the right equipment, except the SF center channel does not work like it should BUT its serviceable.

If you brought the rears back and afforded me a GP Homie for a center channel, I am CERTAIN that your opinion would change quickly and absolutely. Your VAC100's would be a likely looking for a new home. Heck you don't even need that expensive Denon, rip that out too. Cambridge DVD87 will fill in nicely.

BTW, we're not talking about using multi-channel recordings we are talking about all your 2 channel CD's playing on a level that your current more expensive two channel system can only hint at. Using Prologic II. Trust me if I was afforded the opportunity to show you what that Anthem can REALLY do, you'd bang your head against the wall because you've had it all this time. (Even with the homie Center!)

Promise. My insurance is the Anthem is so good as a processor, I can probably make your multi-channel playback sound just like your current two channel system...if you REEALLY wanted it that way. :)

Thanks for the extra info, I appreciate it.