How can you not have multichannel system

the audiophile hobby endeavors to reproduce the live event, or so I believe

Don't agree. The audiophile goal is to accurately reproduce whatever is embedded in the media. The recording engineer and producer may, or may not, try to reproduce the live event. Audiophiles can only reproduce what has been recorded.

There is no agreed upon standard for what to do with the rear (or side) channels with multi-channel audio. There are no technical reasons why any musical element couldn't be assigned to any individual channel. The decisions are aesthetic in nature. Some of the productions may appear to be natural, others not so. For a large body of popular music the distinction is irrelevant in that no single musical event ever really occurred.

I've noticed in many of the replies that people have assigned the channel choice decision-making to the recording engineer. While that is possible, the more likely person in charge is the producer. There are exceptions, but for the most part recording engineers are technicians more concerned with the correct positioning of mics and avoiding level overload. The artistic vision of the music's ultimate presentation as heard by the public is usually determined by the producer.

Regarding the original question -- for me it comes down to how much well recorded multi-channel music that I like is available. In order to match the quality of my existing 2 channel system I estimate it would take an additional $15k minimum investment in source components, processors, amps, speakers and cables. I extrapolate that to mean there has to be at least $15k in multi-channel music that I would also buy in the near future. Your system and your music collection should have some sense of balance, IMO. As pointed out by others that amount of music isn't available. So why even have a multi-channel music system?

Indeed. Very nice Onhwy61...well said.

Mig007, your thread has garnered 108 responses (and counting) - you “struck a chord!” Well done.

01-06-09: Onhwy61

The audiophile goal is to accurately reproduce whatever is embedded in the media.

I can't argue with that.

One would hope a multi channel recording of an orchestra would place instruments in their proper place rather than having the gong in the right rear channel.

At least that's what I would hope.

On the other hand, if Roger Waters wants a dog to bark from the right rear channel on "Amused To Death", then that's an artistic choice I understand. Sound effects are an integral part of that recording, and it's the type or recording that could benefit from a multi-channel experience.

Onhwy61,

The audiophile goal is to accurately reproduce whatever is embedded in the media.

Obviously, but that is as good as they can get. Nevertheless, the ideal is an excellent recording. Everyone constantly talks about "great" recording and "great" performances. When you get both it is thrilling.

a recording is an inexact reproduction of reality. recording quality varies. why strive for a significant discrepancy from reality ? in fact there is no way to know what is embbeded on a recording. the content is unknown. therefore, how can you strive to reproduce that which is unknown ?

our hobby is essentially one of entertainment. thus, there is no definitive criterion for achieving the "optimum" level of entertainment. it is a purely subjective phenomenon.

i accept the concept of accuracy. it is an ideal which cannot be attained, as a stereo system is composed of components which are imperfect.

those who believe that "input=output" is the sole purpose of a stereo system are entitled to that opinion. unfortunately, there will never be an accurate system and it is difficult , if not impossible to quantify the inaccuracy of a stereop system, as the concept of accuracy is mult-dimensional.

i think that that trying to configure a multi channel stereo systemis just a manifestation of satisfying the taste of the listener, as tvad has stated. i don't consider any other significance to this endeavor.