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

Phil wrote: "Two channels can generate interferences, true. It's way true for MC too. Neither is perfect. But this defect is less tone-destroying than multichannel processing by a long shot."
This argument is a canard. There is no additional processing in true multichannel; tsimply, there are more channels handled in the same way as the two in stereo.

Kal

Kal...glad everyone doesn't buy into Phil's eroneous theories.

"There are more channels handled in the same way as the two in stereo." Well, there is that little defect too. How many multi-channel schemes are there? There's a reason every one of them requires a processor somewhere in the chain. Stereo puts it all in the medium and in your head.

Phil

""There are more channels handled in the same way as the two in stereo." Well, there is that little defect too. How many multi-channel schemes are there? There's a reason every one of them requires a processor somewhere in the chain. Stereo puts it all in the medium and in your head."

There's no need for a processor in a multichannel system except, perhaps, in your head. ;-)

Kal

I also dabbled in "quadraphonic" systems for a while. I came to feel that as a concept and potential, MC should be better if money was no object anywhere in the chain: sound recording, equipment design and manufacture, my own budget. With realistic systems possible within my budget however I could always assemble a more satisfying 2C system. Perhaps, a role was also played by the sources available (LP's then, CD's now) that were/are optimized for 2C.

213Cobra: I've always found the most natural and holistic-sounding speaker for music available at any given time and within what I was willing to spend and accommodate.

I wonder if you'd mind going down the memory lane and listing what those were at different times. The best you heard and the best you could afford.