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

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

Thanks for the quick response. Where can I find more information on this 20.2 MC music system?

"I haven't called you a liar at any time."

Phil you are correct. You haven't called me a liar, you just said my opinion and belief is a lie. But you didn't call ME a liar, yes!

"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."

Save the hogwash about economics. It's not about marketing or the industry fooling consumers. It's about the music, remember.

"YOU posed the question. Don't protest that you don't like the answer!"

Your right, I did pose the question...and I'm not protesting the answer. Your opinion is your opinion. I'm protesting the content of your answer, because its just plain misguided...dare I say wrong.

"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."

I've heard the 00.01% system you haven't. You'd be shock how it sounds.

"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."

Everyone hasn't been seduced! We've sat down in the listening chair and come to our own conclusion that MC picks up where 2 channel leaves off. They've experienced how music can be...outside of the 2 channel box.

"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."

Phil...I'm sorry but this statement tells me that you like so many others still don't know what I'm talking about. If however many systems left such a bad taste in your mouth toward MC, then you don't have any idea what I'm talking about!

"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."

This statement proves that there is still hope for you and MC music. Your still willing to take the time to listen and even learn something.

Phil...somebody got it right!!! And I heard it for myself about a month ago! Your today came a month ago.