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

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

Cd wAllace. Wake up ans smell the coffee!

Phil,

Fidelity? It's why I listen to surround.

What I hear when I listen to a surround system is all that garbage two channel leaves in front of the performers is stripped away giving me access to the instrument in a way that two channel cannot. Detail and texture that borderlines on "real", to a much greater degree than the thin and over detailed 180 degree two channel presentation.

Sibilance once part of the recorded performance dissappears
strident strings become rich and full.

The ability to hear behind added delay and reverb on a singers voice provides me with an insite to the performance, a bloom two channel guys pay 6 figures for, I have never heard with a two channel system without cheating with the acoustics (I did the cheating), especially below $10K. The dramatic environment changes from one disc to another and a sense of scale dipoles give but without the homogenous tendencies.

Of course I get the benefits of being included in the soundstage and control of the soundstage presentation, very powerful psych-acoustic effect. Then their is the fill between the speakers when percussion instruments are used as they project much like the do in real life at the listener when mic'd that way.

So I am wondering exactly what fidelity I am missing?

What details my $40,000 two channel system is also not providing? A more refined system that mimics what top studios use to make recording decisions on.

We are on extreme end of the philosophical scale, you like the idea of simple, no crossover no extra goodies, I embrace the opposite, digital crossovers for each sub, multi-channels with multi element crossovered speakers.
Control the signal. The result....the same? We both enjoy our systems this way.

As for delay and timbre's, my system is consistent you can listen to a simple voice or instrument decay without a shimmer or pulse. The amplifiers and speakers I use are as phase accurate and harmonically balanced as I can find.

Speakers are flat period, what hurts with two channel helps with surround.

I'm sorry Thomlinson Holman let you down, really me more than you...

So what Fidelity was missing? Could the fact the surround doesn't allow you to hone in on one aspect of the recording as easily be the perception it is not as clear. Could you have assimilated all that grunge carried by two channel systems to the listener as detail? Do you have time to expand? You have a great deal of experience so magical, or holistic isn't going to be good enough.

Describe the physical event that either ques you in to timing errors or reinforces proper timing. What keeps you awake with surround? Could High Frequency hearing loss be the problem for the percieved lack of focus? You need that artificial edge created by two channel to make it sound clear?

I don't know what's the issue? What Fidelity is gone, because my surround system gives me more.