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

CDW,

Your dogma is static measurement. That's OK, but it's been proven time and again that we're not measuring enough or we measure the wrong things, for measurement to reflect what a component sounds like. I have a preamp in my stash that is one of the lowest-distortion preamps ever made, and it measures ruler flat. Its square wave performance is exemplary. In its day it was an advance for solid state. No one thinks it sounds better than a huge range or worse-measuring devices of same function available today. Even you certainly prefer worse-measuring gear to this preamp.

But knock yourself out.

Bandwidth certainly is related to the sound of an amplifier, including the ultrasonic harmonic components that affect perception even if they cannot be pinpointed by most people. Extension to 34kHz isn't among the worst nor best. But on a comparative basis, it's pretty good. 115kHz is fully top tier. Yet few people would choose either because of these measurements, and neither did I. Both however prove your assumptions about tube amps are dated and wrong.

I don't have any exclusive attachment to SET amplification. I just happen to have a few SET amps that are exceptionally good. Many SET amps do not meet my approval. But it is really difficult to find one that sounds bad, unlike most other topologies. In any case, there are a few transistor and tube push-pull amps I'd be happy to have. I just don't need them right now.

The Cary 805 does, by the way, kind of sound like it tests. Not entirely. The test suggests a behavior and that behavior can be more or less heard. But under dynamic conditions into real speakers, there are bigger variables. In any case, my 845 amps sound appreciably better, certainly more accurate, and yes, they produce their power. These are among the reasons I own them and do not own Carys. Note however that the Carys are very well built.

Nevertheless, it's well known that an SET amp has its imperfections. They are just aren't amusical, a problem suffered by a variety of ruler-flat components. Every electronics designer knows this. They simply elect to use a topology that balances the imperfect factors to produce the best semblance of actual music sounds. SET has been embraced once again by some of the most talented and aware designers in audio. It needs no defense.

You will notice that the MC1201 square wave performance measured virtually perfect in the Stereophile test, which I recall as being your chief criticism of autoformer amps. It's frequency response at 8 ohms, where I'd be using it if I had a pair, is fine, only showing significant softening at 2 ohms as expected. Anyway, it's a great amp. You should listen to a pair (or more).

"Rich" in the case of the Denon does not imply a fixed EQ correction, it describes the cartridge's ability to reveal and extract information. Its information density is exemplary. It's frequency response is not rolled off. It's superior to CD, for that matter, if the info is in the vinyl.

I respect Bob Stuart's engineering acumen. Unfortunately, his speakers are sounding worse. Knowledge and application are different things. He'd get better results if both coincided. Nevertheless, I grant that his contributions to digital, acoustic and waveform understanding have been significant in hifi, and others have benefitted to the point of getting better results than he has lately.

Yes, an MC system is subverted by multiple drivers and certainly by crossovers, multipled over multiple loudspeakers -- and then further drained of fidelity by processing. If you are simulating multi-channel through a 2C system, then number of drivers becomes moot over 2C, but the processing remains a problem. If you are adding discrete channels, you can't get away from the deleterious effects of multiplying the instance of the speakers you've chosen. I've accepted that my single FRD Druids have a purity that the dual FRD Definitions give up a trace, in order to deliver more scale and definition. That's why I have both. I surely wouldn't want to multiply that small compromise further with an MC implementation. If you can't hear this problem, well...sorry.

I'm not sure where you got the idea I like the SF Amati, but they never made my list. You have in any case acquired data, but you haven't organized it into knowledge. If you like MC, that's your call. I have no issue with that. You asked originally what other people think. But don't try to sell the illusion that you like MC because of some "education" foundation about audio. So far, you're making all the mistakes typical of newbies who have amassed data without deriving understanding. Good luck with that.

Phil

Phil...you've talking yourself in to a circle of a wurlwind for long enough. You've made...tried to make your point. Thanks for the effort, but I think its time to move on. There are more mystical chipmunks waiting in line to post. ;)

So Kal...when did you discover MC listening?

I was fascinated by it in the early 70's when I played around with the Hafler circuit. Earlier than that, as a child, I was influenced by a neighbor who had a 4 channel system back in the 50s(!). He used R2R stereo tape and set up the system in duplicate stereo with a speaker in each corner of the room.

My modern entry into it was when I was given a full Meridian Reference system for review (http://www.stereophile.com/digitalsourcereviews/201/index.html) and, from there, there was no turning back.

Kal

Phil,
As I mentioned it has been fun and I have been learning a great deal from you but I must inform you that much of what I say from a technical standpoint is being confirmed by someone with a great deal more experience than I. As you ramble on many times incorrectly, my guy points out where you are not being precise.

I've been cheating but what is interesting is his prediction of what you will say and do next. That is the part that shocked me the most. He knows your religion, he knows your dogma and he underestands and can predict your behaviour. Scary how accurate he has been. Right down to you not understanding what is important in what measurements determine what amplifier sounds like. I never said frequency response had much to do with the "sound" of an amplifier. The Cary's sound is more profoundly effected by other parameters. Something at three years I understand and have heard demonstrated to me. Your assessment of the McIntosh is incorrect it's square wave is slow in its rise time. And that does affect its sound along with some other slight issues. Am I saying that the McIntosh is a bad amplifier? absolutely not! I just brought that to your attention that it still exhibits characteristics that color its sound slightly versus other amplifiers in its class. This I have heard and it conforms with your management of the highs in your system. IE. Its a coloration you tend to like.


So you should get over the 15 to 1 experience difference and up your game a little. I understand that you're a superior audio being to me so I will accept my limitations in not being able to understand that what is ok for you, is not ok for me. And like I said I know you own all the best equipment there is to buy, so if I want fidelity I have to buy what you have.

To me this last post is just a veiled attempt to belittle me personally. There is nothing new in it same stuff different day, just a slightly more aggressive attack on me and my information. Well all you have proven is that were I have chosen to get my information from is clearly out of your league. You don't understand amplification and you love your speakers despite the fact they don't come up to your standards and philosophy. And lets not forget you're a superior audio being. At 25 years old, I have
Bat like hearing compared to you, so take your little esoteric pet complaints that you use to increase your self-importance and move along.

Its over I'm not convinced you know what I'm talking about. And your Zu's are a novelty item, just like the Sonus's. You should have kept your quads and built dipole subs for them. You'd been better off. Cause like your 7 channel Zu's the quads are multichannel too.

Would anyone else care to post about thier Multichannel experiences or has this thread officially be shut down by the powers that be?

The other "not so obvious" point this thread was to hopefully help those who have or are at least are willing to try multichannel, but have run into a few bad experiences. Believe it or not, everyone who claims to know or owns a HT/Music store, really doesn't know how to get it right. Not to say I am the end all guru of multichannel. Not by a long shot! But I, and many others like me have seen it demonstrated, thoroughly explianed, and have done it ourselves. We are here to help...if you want it.

Personally, I think many of the 2CH guys are scared. Scared of the fact that there is a chance that I among other may be right. That MC...done correctly, may completely baffle thier knowledge, won't listen to their ears, and will dismiss MC because they don't understand how it can pick up where 2CH leaves off. Thats why so many call it a gimmick, other than they couldn't do what MC has done without spending at least 3/4 of thier salary. No fish oils or $500 .5 meter cables here, people!

May be its the visually effects of glowing objects while listening. Maybe..just maybe...if I can think of a way to make my mystical chipmuck to give off a warm soothing glow. Wait...I think I'm onto something!