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

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!!! :)

No, D, we don't agree. The "power of 5" is less than the power of 2 in placing realistic music reproduction in your home. The basketball analogy is a non-sequiter. More drivers in more positions with more crossovers, lower quality all the way around for a given sum of money; worse amplifiers, etc. etc. only translates to worse. Time confusion, magnified room interaction, phase confusion, etc. Nothing is really clear.

I have no idea whether your ability to set up a 2 channel system is comparable to mine, worse or better. And neither do you. But I live in the epicenter of the entertainment industry, saturated with multi-channel advocates. Sometimes they visit. I've had doubters of 2ch, full of multi-channel zeal, media or sound professionals all, forced to admit that they underestimated what can be achieved with 2 channels after hearing my system. They've also admitted that they could not possibly equal the tonal quality and music fidelity of my 2 channels without raising cost and seriously mucking up the aesthetics of my rooms.

For me, hifi must be in the living spaces, not sequestered to some kind of dedicated geek cave. Not that I would have multichannel sound if I elected to build a system in a dedicated space. But multichannel as comprised today is a joke as a technology to integrate in a social living space.

Up to any practical spending level I can think of, I can achieve a higher level of musical fidelity in 2 channels than in more than two, on the quality differences of the gear choices alone, as budget dictates. If I built a 2 channel system for the original poster's hypothetical $10,000, and then tried to extend that tonal quality to multichannel for perhaps $20,000, I'd then be able to spend that 20Gs on 2 channels better still. If you're paying attention to tone and realism, you just can't get away from that reality. However, if you put multichannel artifacts ahead of realism and tone, then nothing will convince you otherwise.

The original poster asked: "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?" My answer is unconditionally 2 channel, and it would be the same at 10X that budget, too.

Phil

CDw,

Would you consider the acoustics department at USC, working with THX, to be competent at MC setup?

20.2 ch, way beyond any retail configuration, in a room engineered for optimal MC "realism." Stereo or MC was interesting as an acoustical phenomenon, and better than any MC setup I've heard elsewhere (plus I live in an area where skills for this are high, and installations are many), but it wasn't up to the acoustic truth I can get from my own 2 channels.

Economically, MC is good for the industry if people bite. And movies are the bait, notwithstanding the music crowd here. Unfortunately, MC is another unnecessarily complex and intrusive dead end for anyone seeking convincing tonal and spatial fidelty to the actual experience of listening to music live. Nonetheless, many will be seduced by it. As an economic choice I have no argument with their / your preference. Buy it and be happy. But anyone asking my advice is going to be steered clear of it by me.

Phil