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

Oh.. CD... you had more questions:

1/ I didn't drop any names regarding equipment. I can but I didn't.

2/ If I set your expectations for fidelity with $10,000 of 2 channel system, you will not want to degrade it by subbing in 5.1 lesser channels. Instead you will be trying to figure out how to afford another $10,000 to TRY to avoid screwing up what you're hearing from 2.

3/ We're still plagued with enough recording engineers that don't have good judgement with stereo, after 50 years. You might be too old to hear before you can listen to a well-crafted multi-channel recording.

4/ Performance -- Go ahead, strip the labels. You can go into the hifi underground and find any number of ways to spend $10,000 on beautiful, solid, satisfying 2 channel by brands you've never heard of. You won't get brand seeking from me.

Phil

Phil, hears the deal. I would believe everything you said about how 2 channel is far superior to MC....if my ears didn't tell me diffferently. It's wasn't novilty or special effects I was listening to. I EXPERIENCED the musical performance! To be honest with you, I think your partially ashamed to admit it, but your more "MC" than 2 channel anyway!!! The fact that you think with a larger budget, MC can even compare to what some call "the holy grail of music", tells me your borderline MC. Phil...there is still hope! There are programs out there tailored especially for you too. :)

No doubt there are systems that are spectacular when it comes to music reproduction. But lets face it, the majority cost more than 10K. I'm saying, IME, I've listened to a properly setup MC system that will smoke a lot of the 10K "budget systems" , and it costs around 6K. And thats just the entry level system.

You right, it doesn't matter how many speaker you can cram into a system. Its about maximizing performance with the one's you have. I'm saying, IME, I've heard a systems that will more convincing and/or encouraging than you think, and it won't cast 10K or be a 20.2 system.

Hey Phil,

Thanks for the thorough responses,

Let me give you an analogy to make something clear;

Scotty Pippen and Micheal Jordan in their prime, could not beat a Division II college team by themselves.

What you fail to realize in many instances, but this one inparticular, the power of five can elevate above the power of two. We are not building the same animals and that is what you have to realize. Surround divides labor, spreading the load making compentent speakers and amplifiers work well above and beyond their two channel capabilities. That's why audiophiles simply have terrible surround systems for the most part. They build off the front two channels, not the optimum way to approach the problem.

Surround fares much better with normal room conditions than two channel. One of two channels biggest weaknesses is its deleterius interaction with the room. Very very problematic.

"What compromise must you make in quality of power amplifiers and speakers to spread much of that money over 5.1 or 7.1 channels, instead of 2?"

Less than you think, let me also interject that I have no doubt in my mind that my skill assembling a two channel system is equal to yours. So what is preposed has been tested on skeptics like yourself time and again.

"We're still plagued with enough recording engineers that don't have good judgement with stereo, after 50 years. You might be too old to hear before you can listen to a well-crafted multi-channel recording."

I don't have any issues with poor recordings, must be your system is so revealing....or

Two channel is great for LP's which is why 40 years past Vinyls obsolescence we still play them. And why 23 years after the CD was invented we can't get the sound right, 2 channel is a boat anchor to digital, dragging it down.

"But if you want the highest possible music fidelity, communication of emotion, and tone, then 2 channels are your optimum solution at your stated price, and well above."

I'll see if I can't get some Zu Definition 1.5 speakers, compare them to my cheap surround system. See if they can hold up under the pressure. Two of my most recent victims don't think so after hearing the Zu's, but you have to have them side by side to really get a sense don't you think?

What amp should I use? what do you recommend Phil? I don't play with that niche of speakers much.

Hey if you live close to Baltimore, your welcome to participate. Should be fun.

Doug

If I were looking to put together a system for music only, no doubt it would be two channel. I've gone down the multichannel route and to me it was a waste of time and money, for music that is. Most of the multichannel recording are terrible. There are a couple that were done correctly and this can be quite nice, but these are few and far between and just not worth the hassle.

Now if I was looking to put together a multi-purpose sytem to be used for HT and music, if would definately multichannel. I disagree with those who say you can get the movie experience from just two speakers. Just too much going on and with HT the effect to the rear and .1 channels are essential IMO.

BTW, you can put together a system that does both very well at this price point.

Jack_Dotson...get ready to call me crazy. You haven't heard a proper MC setup until you can take your 2channel CD's, play them over the MC system, and it sounds mind-numbingly better in MC then in stereo. I can say that because I've heard it for myself. Your MC system can be setup to smoke just about any 2 channel system...while playing stereo CD's. And guess what...It may be less expensive than you current 2 channel system.

The only reason it was a waste of time and money is because whoever you went to for product and advice had no clue as to what they were doing!!! But all is not lost! You can get a MC system for both HT and Music. Interested? Let me know!!

OK...you can call me crazy now!!! :)