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

And again Phil...Its not the answer, its the content behing it.

"The static measurements of drivers do not capture their actual behavior in dynamic use, and the ear can hear the difference."
"Massing many "matched" drivers has its appeal but it nevertheless draws attention to what is different among them, however small."

These statement pretty much means that every speaker, be it Wilson to Def Tech or DIY, draw attention to its imperfections because it uses multiple drivers. And of course you system doesn't because it uses a single "full" range driver. In other words, yours is better? I beg to differ, and so does every other manufactor and DIYer around!!

Also, no matter how much you measure a speaker, even during "dynamic use", if the output response measures even within +-1db, it still has no fidelity and imperfections are audible once you add more than one driver?

"I don't have circa 1920 SET amps."

The technology hasn't advanced since the 20's, 50's the absolute latest. It's just in a modern housing. So, let me rephrase, its outdated!

"Obviously you don't know about my system. When you do, the conversation can improve."

Oh, but Phil, I have heard what your type of system sounds like. No I haven't heard your exact system obviously, thank God. I will say the conversation has progressed far more than the techology for your system has.

"I have no idea what your "magic chipmunk" represents but audio sense isn't among its assets. "

But even without audio sense, my magic chipmunk knows you don't know what your talking about and your talking in a complete circle.

"until you hear what I'm describing" - I can't because it ain't there!!

It's hopeless!! One minute your bashing MC, the next you even say 2ch "has its problems" with being holistic and having fidelity. Oh, I get it!! Unless someone has your exact system, they'll never have tonal fidelity or be holistic. It's just like my magic chipmunk...all in your head!!!

Have you ever had your holistic system with true tonal fidelity measured? I'm sure you wanna be able to back up all these outlandish aligations, don't you? Of course you didn't measure your system. Measurements mean nothing anyway, right? People just waste money and time to measure speakers for nothing?

Let's get back to the question at hand. 6k on a MC system, 10k on a 2ch, which one? And please keep the meaningless babble to a minimum!

Phil, you've clearly stated where you stood! Respect it....and laugh, all at the same time, I must! Agree..no comprehend...not a chance! Lets open things back up the less holistic system owners.

Yes, Cdw, every speaker that uses massed drivers has the same problem I outlined. It only gets worse with many speakers, and is containable with just two.

Yes, my speaker is better for a lot of reasons, but its not exlusive. You can have then too. You can even use Zu speakers for a MC system. A pair of Definitions in front supplemented by Druids all around would be about as good as MC gets, within its unfortunate limits. And by the way, it really is not at all significant to me if "....so does every other manufacturer and DIYer around!" I cannot be responsible for what others haven't discovered yet, especially if they refuse to take advice, right?

You have developed a habit of mis-stating my position. I haven't said nor thought that combining drivers renders them having "no fidelity." That would be an absured idea. There are essentially only degrees of unreality available to us in hifi. We're all just trying to keep the unreality to a minimum. I have a way.

And yes, sometime you will hear what I'm talking about -- that good drivers massed draw attention to what is not matched.

Phil

CDw,

Nothing on the market sounds like a Zu speaker. Honestly. Whether you like them or not, Zu speakers are their own thing. So I am quite certain you have not heard "my type of system." Don't presume that if you heard a Lowther or Fostex FRD loudspeaker driven by triodes that you've heard my system. Not likely close.

The only "old" technology in my amplification is the tubes themselves, particularly the 300B triode. Hmm....it's still regarded, within its power limits, one of the most linear amplifying devices made to date. Now, apart from that little bit of excellence, it sounds good too, especially if it is used in an advanced circuit to eliminate the bass bloat common in too many 300B amps, and the design pulls the treble spray into line. How's that done? With inventive combinations of resistors, capacitors, chokes, inductors, and transformers that are in virtually every other modern amp. "It's just a modern housing"....? Ridiculous. And, Man, if you haven't seen it, wait until you see an 845! Magnificent!! How about 7 of those to light up a room, if you're so set on MC?

I believe you cannot hear what I have been describing as the superior sound of well-designed 2C. I also do not attribute this to a physical deficiency in your ears but an attitudinal one between them. But that will sometime change and you'll begin paying attention to what your ears already know, that your brain has yet to assimilate. Patience.

I don't think I said 2C "has its problems with being holistic." In fact I pointed out holistic sound as a superior 2C attribute. There are people who feel that monaural sound is better still, but I've already said I'm not among them. 2C is CAPABLE of delivering the highest fidelity music reproduction available today at a given cost, but there's no guarantee you'll attain it. There are lots of ways to screw it up! Certainly, someone who knows what they are doing with MC could design a system that sounds better than someone who DOESN'T know what they are doing with 2C. But that's not what we've been talking about. Design two systems, one MC and one 2C informed by the same respective expertise and funded by the same money -- heck let's give the MC guy 50% more! -- and 2C wins on fidelity, tone, less "unreality."

Now, I know you don't believe this. I am confident someday you will.

Phil

CdWallace. Why so cynical?