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

Let me chime in again and offer a formal appology to Surgod and all others I may have offended. It's not my charactor to be so "in your face" and rude. It's truely not my intention. Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining, though!!! But I never want to be rude.

My goal is to figure out who knows what they're talking about and who doesn't. Apparently, I've started weeding out the one's who don't. I haven't seen a response from Surgod or anyone else since 5/25/06.

Back to the original purpose of the thread. You've got 6k to spend on a MC system and/or 14k on a 2channel system. Which one do you pick and why?

As a side note, it's benificial for everyone, espceially the newcomers to the hobby, if you post answers based on 1st hand experience! If you haven't heard a properly setup MC system, and can come to conclusion based on your experience and preference, please don't respond. It doesn't take much to resite what you see in a magazine or have heard from a friend who's friend's cousin told you something he read.

PS - Am I in the twilight zone or are more of the 1950 era recordings being remastered in thier original 3 channel and quadrophonic setups?

If you have to distribute $10,000 over 5+ speakers, a subwoofer, 6+ channels of amplification, a processor and the usual digital source, in music fidelity terms you've got nuthin'. Put that money into two channels only and the quality of everything goes up dramatically, without spending a dollar more. And you'll get satisfying sound out of movies too. You can also have better vocal clarity than any center channel speaker can provide you. In all ways, the 2 channel alternative will be better, except one -- you won't have primary sonic events happening behind you. So what? -- You don't in real circumstances anyway. Moreover, the number of multi-channel recordings that make any good use of the format is tiny, and as we've seen in prior attempts at more than 2-channel sound, very few engineers have any clue how to use the format to contribute to fidelity, as opposed to novelty and special effects. It might be that some "audiophiles and audio enthusiasts" will accept the sonic degradations of multi-channel in that budget, but musicophiles who care about genuine fidelity won't.

Phil

213 Cobra

"in music fidelity terms you've got nuthin'"

So unwise, your choice of words. Harvard's School of Medicine and Bell Labs disagree, they say we've got more fidelity and musicality. They said it not me...like in the 50's and 60's

CDwallace is trying to tell you that he's heard differently, and if you read carefully what you "think" now is no different from what he "thought" before his experience.

See he strolled into a situation he wasn't prepared for, and you also would not be prepared for either. And he embellishes in the comparison as the surround system was less than $10K and the two channel systems $15K+, 30K+....hmm. Some pricey lambs.

I can tell you have very little surround experience;

Know where you went wrong,

"You can also have better vocal clarity than any center channel speaker can provide you."

I'm sorry, you're just plain wrong. Even the physics is against you on this one. And this extra clarity is not at the expense of a uniform deep soundstage, just incase you were wondering.

It appeared also that you trying to tell us what we can use for a center channel? I suppose I MUST have a BIG TV in this system to satisfy your vision of this system too? You can't make me have one!:) If you burden us with what you think a surround system is, of course you would be correct about its sound quality. But I must say your imagination is not quite up to the task of outlining what you are missing, it certainly has nothing to do with things behind you as most would incorrectly assume. Although the rear channels are critical and must be on, they do so much more than just make noise in the back....much much more.

Just so you know; any speaker designated as a "center channel" should not be used in a music surround system if it can be helped...there are some exceptions to this rule but just a few.

Two channel is the sonic degradation, but I know the masses of musicophile's opinions are overwhelmingly on your side.....for just a little while longer. But keep an open mind, "cause times they are a changin'" :)

213cobra - Thanks for the response. It's funny you say that a $10k MC system is "nothin'". Even funnier that you say a 10K 2channel system is "dramatically goes up in quality." Care to elaberate?

What about the performance of the systems. No, the names of the manufactors don't even compare!!! I will say you are 200% correct. But what about the performance of the system? I've notice the majority of "audiophiles" do a lot of name dropping, which is "nothin'". Who cares about what brand name you have, isn't it supposed to be about performance anyway?

And your right...few do have the know how to bring the best out of MC mixes. What are you implying by this? If more engineers had a clue as how to use the format better....? What are you not saying by this comment?

I really love multichannel, and have set up my system for it. Dynaudio Temptations for the mains, Dynaudio Evidence center and C4-s for surrounds. The player was an EMM Labs CDSD/Dac6e until recently. Now it's an Esoteric X01 limtied. The v=center and rears go through a Theta Casablance courtesy of a Theta 6-shooter. Having said that, the problem is that there isn't much well-recorded music that I like. Yes, movies are spectacular (a retractable screen is a necessity), but that wasn't the point of the room. One of the few is the recent Ray Charles. When you go from MC to 2 channel, the sound just seems to collapse. It is also worth noting thast the acoustics of a 2-channel room is different than for an MC setup. I use diffusers rather than absorbers at the first reflection point as well as in the back, and room has very lively, dynamic sound.

David Shapiro