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

If you current system was implimented into a 20.2 system, how would it be. I was assure your system has everything your looking for, including the correct amount of fidelity? Would that system be holistic and up to par? Or are you a triod kind of guy and wouldn't dare expand the hozisons of you system beyond 2 channel.

I guess what I'm getting at is if you system, having all the things MC doesn't and more, where structured in a MC setup, would it still be as good or better. It would be safe to assume that such superior quality multiplied would do nothing but produce more superior, holistic, quality music! My magic chipmunk would love to know!

Cdw,

I happen use triodes now in my amplification but I have no fanaticism about that topology. With 101db/w/m effciency in my speakers, my big 845 triode power goes pretty far. But it's not all I'm willing to listen to. I also love, for instance, McIntosh MC1201 monoblock SS autoformer amps with 1200 watts each, might even buy a pair.

Would my current system expanded to 20.2 be better? You may have missed a key point of my prior posts. The answer is, "Not likely." Why? Because there would be many more drivers and nothing at all can be *perfectly* matched. There'd be software processing attempting to ham-handedly simulate much more complex wave behavior than the processor and speaker array would be up to. And there'd be too much gear for a domestic environment, to boot. Point is, all those extra drivers reduce TONE and clarity. The software behind the processing is highly imperfect about allocating the systems array of signals. Not to mention that scaling up my 2C system to 20.2 would *dramatically* boost its cost.

I'd be open to expand beyond 2C if I had reason to. However, it doesn't stand to reason that multipying everything I have simply makes it all more so. I could certainly generate more acoustic power, but more subtlety and tone? There's the doubt.

Phil

Wouldn't you speaker need to be as accurate as possible in order to reproduce the tone...of the recording? Or is it all about the over all tone of the system? We can go back and forth about the format, but I haven't heard you mention anything about the tone of the recording. If the system has its own tone, which dominates the tone of the recording, then where do I hear what the recording is supposed to sound-like? Isn't this the key to fidelity and tone? Or is it a matter of matching components to counterbalance another? You can add the multiple drivers and achieve the intended tone...of the recording...as long as the speakers are accurate. Thats like saying 2+2 doesn't equal 4 unless you use a simple calculator. It doesn't matter which calculator you use, if its programmed wrong, you outcome will not be accurate. But if the scientific or basic calculator is programmed correctly, then the outcome will be accurate.

Would you agree Phil?

Ideally, one builds a system, 2C or otherwise, that does not "add" tone to a recording that doesn't have it, nor delete tone from a recording that does. Certainly, I build my systems that way.

Of course, fidelity is a function of a whole system. A speaker, amp or source alone cannot save it if the remaining components underperform. Balance of factors is essential, since nothing is perfect.

No, I haven't yet found you can add multiple drivers and achieve intended tone if the drivers are accurate. No two drivers are fully matched. Just close. Having more just makes the inconsistencies more audible and disruptive to fidelity.

So no, I don't agree.

Phil

But this is what I don't get. Accuracy plus accuracy equals accuracy. Accurate speakers plus matching accurate speaker...equals output less than accurate???? Please explain further, if you will.