Multi channel much better than stereo?

I believe the intent of this post was to cause trouble, but I do think the multi-channel if handled well could be of interest. The SACD format has already got some labels recording in six channel DSD. If the SACD format continues, I believe we will begin to see audiophile grade "SOUND" systems on the market. I think video is a whole different application and personally interests me little. The idea of surround has always intrigued me since Quadraphonic systems of the 70's but I never personally pursue it. The six channel if recorded well and run through gear of the ilk that we all use is interesting. The cost of three more speakers, a sub-woofer and added amps would make it difficult for me to ever achieve a competitive system to my two channel, and that I believe will be the ultimate downfall in audio. Thus the market is in video/ multi-media and so I must agree with Stevens post, your on the wrong forum, please see Multi-media. J.D.

Urban, I like you are running Martin Logans for HT(I love Ht) but I also love Music. It took me a while to figure this out and with alot of help I got the best of both worlds. For HT I use my Lexicon DC-1. I also auditioned a BAT 3i tube preamp with my BAT vk200 and I must say my 2channel imo is out of this world, and much better than the surround mode. I believe my ht is setup properly cause when watching the Cell my wife and I had to keep pausing it cause we though someone was in the house. Watching U571 we thought are ht room turned in to a sub and the walls were falling in, kept looking over are heads for water leaks. On the patriot we almost were hit by bullets and cannon balls. So I am just a bit lost with where you were going with it. Not to affend you in anyway and I sincerely mean it, but you may want to look at upgrading your 2ch. Believe me, your ml can do better than what there doing now. Not to affend your amp but ML's like amps that double down to 2ohms. And balanced works great on them. IMHO
Pete

Urban's response:
Cause trouble ? Start fights ? Inflammatory ? Did I miss anything ? Just trying to learn here; after all, the only way to truly learn is to question "Smart people" that disaggree with you. Hence, my reasoning for being in the audio forum. An interesting challenge, I just thought of, maybe I'll write to an audio/video magazine and pose this idea. Set up two rooms, one state of the art Reference 2 ch system in one, and have another identical room play the same music on a reference multi-ch system. (Of course use same type of componets) Run 100 people through and find out which system they like best. My money would be on the multi-ch. system. It would be interesting. I know what the "Stereo only" folks would say if more people chose the multi, they would say, yah...the people they used, must have been idiots, they don't have the precise technical ears we do, they don't know how a real system should sound. Alright....alright I know I should not have said that !!! To me part of the fun of this hobby is to see what kind of "Wows" for reactions I get when demoing to others. (I said Part of the fun) Some of the best 2 ch. systems I've heard, which were, I'm sure technically correct, and yet boring. Ok I'll say it, because some of you say I should, IMO.
Writing "IMO" is kinda of redundent, isn't it ? Who else's opinion could it be ?
Comments ? Questions ? Criticisms ?

At this point I feel it is apperant that nothing anyone says will be taken to heart by 'urban', IMO. And feel continuing this thread would be a waste of everyones time, IMO. So I encourage no one else humor this clown, IMO.

urban, yer idea of having two separate systems has too many wariables as presented, to be able to draw any conclusions.

1st of all, what exactly do ya mean by "multi-channel"? a h-t set-up is vastly different than one designed for audio, w/ambient-room info as the only program material used for the *other* channels. and, afaik, the audio unit i have is s.o.t.a. for that type of multi-channel audio-only processing, & it's now almost 10-year-old technology. like it or not, (& i happen *not* to like it), audio-surround has wirtually disappeared from the market-place - anyone know anything different? that said, i'm conwinced that multi-channel optimized for audio will absolutely crush multi-channel optimized for h-t, even tho the h-t processing technology is current technology. i'm talking of listening to *music*, of course.

whether or not audio-designed multi-channel will sound better than 2-channel is wery dependent on the music chosen, imho. for example, my re-mastered winyl copy of little feat's live *waitin' for columbus* sounds great w/my surround-processor engaged, set to "outdoor pawillion". but, patricia barbour's *cafe blue* sounds much better w/the processing off then when set to "yazz club" on the processor. to try & cross-compare, little feat sounds better w/*no* processing than patricia barbour sounds *with* processing. then again, my room, at ~25x38, is *great* for 2-channel; smaller rooms wood prolly benefit more from multi-channel ambient processing...

bottom line for me - if i had to choose between *always* using my processor, or *never* using it, it'd yust have to go away! ;~) as far as h-t surround goes, well, it's not an issue for me, as i don't like watching movies. but there's *no way* i'd *ever* run 2-channel audio thru a multi-channel h-t set-up - i'd either have 2 separate systems, or run my h-t processor thru a bypass loop now so commonly awailable on top-line 2-channel preamps. (gee, if audio is so good thru multi-channel h-t, i wonder why these by-pass loops are becoming so popular on all these audiophile preamps?!?) ;~)

regards, doug