Why is 2 Channel better than multi-channel?

Velocity,
FWIW, I also read condescension into your original post and was appalled. Apparently I got that wrong, and I apologize for that. I do NOT doubt that you are an expert on home theater and surround sound, and I also realize (fully) that I am NOT. Your intelligence and experience are obvious (Eldartford's and Landok's too, and lots of others', for that matter). We all just need to be careful how we word things (myself included--!!!!), because it's easy to be misunderstood, particularly when a person has only written words to look at and cannot see the expression on the writer's face, hear the tone, etc. This is such a great site full of REALLY smart people, I just don't want to see things go downhill unnecessarily.

In the words of Rodney King: "Can't we all just get ALONG?!"

p.s. I am NOT being sarcastic with that quote. I think it's very powerful and incisive, and did not deserve to be mocked on "In Living Color."
-Bill

MdHoover,

Can we agree it was my third post that got your attention?

"I do NOT doubt that you are an expert on home theater and surround sound, and I also realize (fully) that I am NOT."

The key to your comment here is the latter part of your statement. I do not know much about "tube rolling" as I don't care for tube amplification all that much. Thus you will not see me engage anyone on the topic other than to ask a question. I've noticed your unabated enthusiasm over your IDS speakers, I never heard them so I cannot comment.

For Landok to jump in this thread I would expect that he has atleast tried several times to make a surround system musical. Instead he offers only a stream of nonsensical comments that no better describe multichannel sound than two channel sound.

Surround sound is not novelty sound anymore than two channel. And Noobs should do there homework and get something better than second-rate second-hand knowledge to debate with. It would be the respectful thing to do, don't you agree?

Yes, I agree that it's necessary to have first-hand experience with something prior to being able to debate it competently. However, I'm not in a position to assess with certainty whether or not any given Audiogon thread participant has such experience, unless I know that member personally, in which case we'd be unlikely to communicate in a public forum. In any case, since I myself lack such experience with multichannel sound, I should leave this discussion. I'll see you in a different thread.

One thing though, Dale Pitcher himself has told me that some people are using the Intuitive Design Summits for home theater, one person having relegated them to REAR CHANNEL duty (LOL!). I think that person has the $65,000 Denalis in the front. I've never heard those, so I can only speculate on how great they must be.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Cheers.

velocity,

The violin is a very musical instrument and it is not the same as the human voice enunciating words on the screen. If surround sound is all around us, as you claim then the point of owning a surround system becomes moot. Don't you agree?

Mdhoover,

7 IDS's with that Kimber crossover? would be quite good for a medium sized room. Imagine a soundfield that images the same way on everyside of the room, renderring the ambiance and image of far away concert right in your room!

I have designed many systems using speakers like your IDS's, imagine being completely emerssed In the IDS sound all 7 speakers acting as one, with all the dynamic range advantages of having 7 speakers and perfectly blended subwoofers versus just 2 speakers. I know it unfortunately costs more, but...

that example may just pull you a bit closer to what Eldartford and myself listen too. And help you imagine the minimum level of refinement I require to find a system competent.

Thanks for your thoughts too.