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


This post is just to get a general ideas among audiophiles and audio enthusiasts; to see who really likes what. Here's the catch!

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?

I'll go first and say multichannel. I've has to opportunity to hear a multichannel setup done right and can't see myself going back to 2-channel. I'm even taking my system posting down and will repost it as a multichannel system.

So...pick your poison! Which one will it be, 2-channel or multichannel.
cdwallace
CDw,

No, I did not call your belief a lie. I merely disagree(d) with it. I don't question the sincerity of your belief in MC as a conveyance for fidelity. I just don't share it.

I didn't say I heard 99.9% of all systems, I said I probably have heard more correctly-implemented MC music systems than 99.9% of PEOPLE who have heard MC. I am fully confident I have heard what you've heard, in terms of competence and quality of system. I just do not draw the same conclusion as you do.

MC hasn't left a bad taste in my mouth. It has a certain entertainment flavor to it. It just doesn't correspond to fidelity, unless you prioritize secondary characteristics over primary ones. I don't need hope. MC-for-music schemes are not enticing today and may never be. It's an ambitious objective beyond the current state of design and software expertise.

Further, my 2 channel systems do not put sound in a box. They achieve excellent spatial projection appropriate to the recording, outstanding tone, realistic timing of events -- everything MC claims as its exclusive purview. From the perspective of a monaural devotee, I'm already multi-channel, so let's just say I am experiencing your epiphany through a superior implementation of the same objectives via a few channels less. You could too.

Phil
Cdw,

Yeah, I heard the system when it was considered complete. It was considered complete enough to demo to outsiders for fundraising and as demonstration of next generation MC, beyond anything on the market then or now.

Phil
Cdw,

How was the 20.2 experience? Interesting, entertaining, but thoroughly unconvincing as an exercise in music fidelity. The range of recordings was excellent. There was nothing amiss in the choice of recordings, the source gear or the amplification. Nor the room. The room sounded pretty good acoustically. The MC experience was an interesting divergence from reality, not progress as fidelity, IMO, but clearly a refashioning of sound that can seduce many people on grounds other than fidelity. I was scientifically fascinated, audiophile-intrigued, but sonically & musically underwhelmed. Others with me who were MC adherents thought is was beyond great, but close questioning revealed they weren't judging on any criteria for fidelity. It's pretty easy to get even experienced people excited with big sound, even if it's divergent from fidelity.

Phil