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


This post is just to get a general ideas among audiophiles and audio enthusiasts; to see who really likes what. Here's the catch!

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?

I'll go first and say multichannel. I've has to opportunity to hear a multichannel setup done right and can't see myself going back to 2-channel. I'm even taking my system posting down and will repost it as a multichannel system.

So...pick your poison! Which one will it be, 2-channel or multichannel.
cdwallace
Then if no two speakers are exactly alike, just close, when why don't you listen in mono?
No, Cdw, you're missing my point. Taking one accurate driver and adding another is revealing the error between them. Then do it again, and again, and again, and you begin to have slightly distinct voices. Clarity and tone are the casualties. There are no two exactly matched drivers. This is just one of the many problems with line-source loudspeakers, even in 2C.

Phil
Some people believe Mono is the highest fidelity medium. I don't. Well-made stereo works with human spatial perception in a way mono nearly completely lacks. Monaural can have terrific tone, but its lack of dimension is too extreme to offer balance of factors. Plus, the supply of mono recordings is limited, and stereo played mono isn't as good.

Phil
No Phil... I really think you missing the logic behind that statement. If two speakers are measured and found to both be accurate...flat frequency response, among other things.. then where is the room for error? No, both are not 100% identical, but the measurements tell the story. If they measure equal, where is the room for error? If the error was that great, they why would you match those two speakers together anyway? It just doesn't make logical sense.

No disrespect, but I guess I'll never get what your saying. It's so insignificant that it's really not worth the time and energy. Maybe after some years of refinement I'll get a glimps of what your saying. But for now, my magic chipmunk is making more sense about audio than you are.

What your arguing is neither hear nor there, because your talking in a complete circle. Stick to your pre-1920 SET technology and out of phase single driver speakers..thats your right! For me, I'll continue to experience my music with current techonolgy...in MC. This system has something your is missing, good sounding music the way the artist intended.

There's plenty of room on the wagon, just don't bring you bottle this time!
Cdw,

I don't have circa 1920 SET amps. And my speakers are phase-coherent. Obviously you don't know about my system. When you do, the conversation can improve.

The static measurements of drivers do not capture their actual behavior in dynamic use, and the ear can hear the difference. Or more to the point, the developed aural mind can discern the problem from the signal feed one's ears are sending to it.

Massing many "matched" drivers has its appeal but it nevertheless draws attention to what is different among them, however small. I have no idea what your "magic chipmunk" represents but audio sense isn't among its assets. If you can't hear the fundamental problem with massed matched drivers, MC artifice, and the limits of software trying to keep up, then you're perhaps happy with your MC sound. That's good for you. It's not even close to the tonal fidelity I can get from 2C and until you hear what I'm describing, there's no resolution to this impasse.

But again, it was YOU who asked the question originally. You just don't like my answer.

Phil