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

Cdwallace,

One has to be definitive to be heard in these debates. So I take a clear position which also corrseponds to what I believe, advise and have experienced.

Look, it doesn't matter what has been posited academically or by research labs regarding the psycho-acoustics of MC -- no system made available to date has been anything close to convincing. But more to the point, they have been destructive of tone, corrosive to holistic representation of sound, and any damaging to realism in spatial presentation.

But let's put even those flaws aside for a moment. $10,000! What compromise must you make in quality of power amplifiers and speakers to spread much of that money over 5.1 or 7.1 channels, instead of 2? I can promise you it is a vast qualitative difference in gear, and no amount of processing makes up for it. In fact, the processing exacerbates it.

That budget is much too low to be able to match in 5.1 channels the tonal, spatial, musical and emotional fidelity that can be attained in 2. Moreover, very few rooms can intelligently accommodate more than 2 channels. I've been through, in detail, the promise of matrixed and discrete 4 channel; DTS; Dolby Surround; SACD Surround, etc., etc., etc. For $10,000, $20,000, $30,000, $40,000 and probably beyond, I can always pull together a system in which 2 channel reproduction will be more convincing.

I've heard the 20.2 system under development at USC with Tom Holman's participation. It was fascinating but not encouraging. High Fideltiy in music is not being achieved by maximizing the number of drivers. It cannot, at least today, be achieved by software correction for all the physical errors introduced by many imperfectly-matched drivers attempting to do the same thing. It is not being attained by discrete approximations of absorbed, reflected and reverberant energy. All of these attempts are sucking life and tone from musical sound. But even if you don't agree, surely you grasp that you can afford much better fundamental-performance speakers if you're only buying 2 on a capped budget, rather than 5. Surely you can agree that much better sounding amplification is available if you're buying only 2 channels of it. If you're buying at Best Buy, perhaps not. Let's assume you're buying elsewhere.

I have no argument with someone who likes MC for its gimmicks and novelties. Whatever entertains you! But if you want the highest possible music fidelity, communication of emotion, and tone, then 2 channels are your optimum solution at your stated price, and well above.

Phil

D_edwards,

Surround in a pure music sense, sans center, sans TV, sans any expectation of ever being used for a movie soundtrack with the associated image in view, is still the same problem -- on a fixed $10K, one can easily assemble 2 channels that will sound better in every way, unless you are assigning inappropriately disproportionate weight to the artifacts that are ham-handedly represented by the non-primary speakers.

It's hash, unfortunately. All you have to do is listen.

Phil

Oh.. CD... you had more questions:

1/ I didn't drop any names regarding equipment. I can but I didn't.

2/ If I set your expectations for fidelity with $10,000 of 2 channel system, you will not want to degrade it by subbing in 5.1 lesser channels. Instead you will be trying to figure out how to afford another $10,000 to TRY to avoid screwing up what you're hearing from 2.

3/ We're still plagued with enough recording engineers that don't have good judgement with stereo, after 50 years. You might be too old to hear before you can listen to a well-crafted multi-channel recording.

4/ Performance -- Go ahead, strip the labels. You can go into the hifi underground and find any number of ways to spend $10,000 on beautiful, solid, satisfying 2 channel by brands you've never heard of. You won't get brand seeking from me.

Phil

Phil, hears the deal. I would believe everything you said about how 2 channel is far superior to MC....if my ears didn't tell me diffferently. It's wasn't novilty or special effects I was listening to. I EXPERIENCED the musical performance! To be honest with you, I think your partially ashamed to admit it, but your more "MC" than 2 channel anyway!!! The fact that you think with a larger budget, MC can even compare to what some call "the holy grail of music", tells me your borderline MC. Phil...there is still hope! There are programs out there tailored especially for you too. :)

No doubt there are systems that are spectacular when it comes to music reproduction. But lets face it, the majority cost more than 10K. I'm saying, IME, I've listened to a properly setup MC system that will smoke a lot of the 10K "budget systems" , and it costs around 6K. And thats just the entry level system.

You right, it doesn't matter how many speaker you can cram into a system. Its about maximizing performance with the one's you have. I'm saying, IME, I've heard a systems that will more convincing and/or encouraging than you think, and it won't cast 10K or be a 20.2 system.

Hey Phil,

Thanks for the thorough responses,

Let me give you an analogy to make something clear;

Scotty Pippen and Micheal Jordan in their prime, could not beat a Division II college team by themselves.

What you fail to realize in many instances, but this one inparticular, the power of five can elevate above the power of two. We are not building the same animals and that is what you have to realize. Surround divides labor, spreading the load making compentent speakers and amplifiers work well above and beyond their two channel capabilities. That's why audiophiles simply have terrible surround systems for the most part. They build off the front two channels, not the optimum way to approach the problem.

Surround fares much better with normal room conditions than two channel. One of two channels biggest weaknesses is its deleterius interaction with the room. Very very problematic.

"What compromise must you make in quality of power amplifiers and speakers to spread much of that money over 5.1 or 7.1 channels, instead of 2?"

Less than you think, let me also interject that I have no doubt in my mind that my skill assembling a two channel system is equal to yours. So what is preposed has been tested on skeptics like yourself time and again.

"We're still plagued with enough recording engineers that don't have good judgement with stereo, after 50 years. You might be too old to hear before you can listen to a well-crafted multi-channel recording."

I don't have any issues with poor recordings, must be your system is so revealing....or

Two channel is great for LP's which is why 40 years past Vinyls obsolescence we still play them. And why 23 years after the CD was invented we can't get the sound right, 2 channel is a boat anchor to digital, dragging it down.

"But if you want the highest possible music fidelity, communication of emotion, and tone, then 2 channels are your optimum solution at your stated price, and well above."

I'll see if I can't get some Zu Definition 1.5 speakers, compare them to my cheap surround system. See if they can hold up under the pressure. Two of my most recent victims don't think so after hearing the Zu's, but you have to have them side by side to really get a sense don't you think?

What amp should I use? what do you recommend Phil? I don't play with that niche of speakers much.

Hey if you live close to Baltimore, your welcome to participate. Should be fun.

Doug