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

No, D, we don't agree. The "power of 5" is less than the power of 2 in placing realistic music reproduction in your home. The basketball analogy is a non-sequiter. More drivers in more positions with more crossovers, lower quality all the way around for a given sum of money; worse amplifiers, etc. etc. only translates to worse. Time confusion, magnified room interaction, phase confusion, etc. Nothing is really clear.

I have no idea whether your ability to set up a 2 channel system is comparable to mine, worse or better. And neither do you. But I live in the epicenter of the entertainment industry, saturated with multi-channel advocates. Sometimes they visit. I've had doubters of 2ch, full of multi-channel zeal, media or sound professionals all, forced to admit that they underestimated what can be achieved with 2 channels after hearing my system. They've also admitted that they could not possibly equal the tonal quality and music fidelity of my 2 channels without raising cost and seriously mucking up the aesthetics of my rooms.

For me, hifi must be in the living spaces, not sequestered to some kind of dedicated geek cave. Not that I would have multichannel sound if I elected to build a system in a dedicated space. But multichannel as comprised today is a joke as a technology to integrate in a social living space.

Up to any practical spending level I can think of, I can achieve a higher level of musical fidelity in 2 channels than in more than two, on the quality differences of the gear choices alone, as budget dictates. If I built a 2 channel system for the original poster's hypothetical $10,000, and then tried to extend that tonal quality to multichannel for perhaps $20,000, I'd then be able to spend that 20Gs on 2 channels better still. If you're paying attention to tone and realism, you just can't get away from that reality. However, if you put multichannel artifacts ahead of realism and tone, then nothing will convince you otherwise.

The original poster asked: "If you were restricted to a budget of $10,000, and wanted to assemble a system, from start to finish, which format would you choose, 2 channel or mulichannel?" My answer is unconditionally 2 channel, and it would be the same at 10X that budget, too.

Phil

CDw,

Would you consider the acoustics department at USC, working with THX, to be competent at MC setup?

20.2 ch, way beyond any retail configuration, in a room engineered for optimal MC "realism." Stereo or MC was interesting as an acoustical phenomenon, and better than any MC setup I've heard elsewhere (plus I live in an area where skills for this are high, and installations are many), but it wasn't up to the acoustic truth I can get from my own 2 channels.

Economically, MC is good for the industry if people bite. And movies are the bait, notwithstanding the music crowd here. Unfortunately, MC is another unnecessarily complex and intrusive dead end for anyone seeking convincing tonal and spatial fidelty to the actual experience of listening to music live. Nonetheless, many will be seduced by it. As an economic choice I have no argument with their / your preference. Buy it and be happy. But anyone asking my advice is going to be steered clear of it by me.

Phil

Well Phil...What is the intended purpose of the 20.2 system? Is it MC music or commerical cinema theaters? If its theaters, your mixing apples with watermelons. In fact Tomilson Holman is a professor at USC...of Film Sound at the USC School of Cinema-Television. Where does this compare with MC music? Your right, it doesn't!

By the way, what was your take on the 20.2 system when you heard it? Have you heard the 20.2 system, for that matter? How was your experience? If you experience was a movie, then no need to answer, seeing we're attempting to stay on the subject!

Furthermore, you, as so many, have the mindset that MC is only for home theater!! You wrong again! Until you've experience what I've experienced, how can you call me a liar? But see thats the thing, I won't dare call you a liar because you've never heard it CORRECTLY with your own ears. When you do, you'll realize you've been lying...to yourself!!

MC is no more complex than stereo...if you know what your doing. If you don't then I can see how you came to the conclusion that it was far more complex.

That's all I'm hearing from so-called audio experts. MC is about movies! They've been crying that same sad tune, loud and wrong, for so many years! If you take movies out of the equation, and focus strictly on the music, take the time to listen, you'll see I know what I'm talking about.

Maybe its best we agree to disagree, although I am having a ball debating the issue. Until you've heard what I'm talking about, you'll never get it. By no means am I giving up on the fight, though. Especially with those who don't have a clue as to what I'm talking about. Many don't have a clue what they're talking about either!!

PS - Have you ever been misdiagnosed by a doctor before? They spend just as many years learning the craft with years in school, and guess what? They still can get it wrong!

The purpose of the USC system I heard was MC music.

Phil

CDw,

I haven't called you a liar at any time. Also, I have extensive experience with MC for music as a discrete endeavor from MC for HT. My comments on this have been in the realm of MC for music, this being AUDIOgon rather than VIDEOgon.

Economically, MC is about movies, as movies are the hook the entire industry's marketing machine is using to entice people into MC. The music side of it is a sideshow economically, however. Just face that fact. Nevertheless, the movie aspect of MC is not the framing of *my* answer to your original question. I am giving you an undiluted music reproduction perspective. And by the way, YOU posed the question. Don't protest that you don't like the answer!

I have heard music MC correctly. It is not an advance in fidelity, IMO. I've probably heard more diverse and correct music MC installations than 99.99% of people who have heard MC of any type. It's not a scheme for convincing fidelity, in my view, but I do understand why some people are seduced by it and enjoy it. That's OK. Do what you want.

20.2, 20.1, 10.2, 10.1, 7.2, 7.1, 5.2, 5.1, 3 channel, 2 channel SRS, SACD MC, DVD-Audio, yadda yadda yadda, none of these schemes in expert configuration are unfamiliar to me. It's plainly reaching to say that MC is no more complex than stereo. I can assure you, I have heard what you're talking about, and my reaction to it is it's worse in every elemental way for music fidelity, than 2 carefully chosen and configured channels. Especially when you stipulate level cost. That doesn't mean I won't continue to be curious and listen for some future iteration of MC when someone gets it right. Today is just not that day.

Phil