The mistake armchair speaker snobs make too often

@fleschler 

OK, if you are talking mastering a stereo recording I agree, two speakers with the engineer sitting in the sweet spot is what you need to master the recording. Now, where our personal "preferences" take a fork in the road is you feel it is the "quality" of the speaker that determines how accurate that image is produced. To me that is simply a money pit. We both agree you are an expert on audio matters. You have years of experience, a custom built room, and enough disposable income to pursue the "quality" speakers you mention. You are required to sit in the sweetspot and let stereo do its thing. 

I agree with Tomlinson Holman:

three items correlate well with Holman's answer to the question; "What determines the bit rate needed for audio on media?"

• Frequency range
• Dynamic range
• Number of channels

As Mr Holman is quick to point out, any audio engineer confronted with the question, “what do you want to do with a higher bitrate?”; will always ask for more frequency range and more dynamic range because they don't know what to do with more channels.  "It's a new paradigm."  "Just to go to 192 KHz sampling rate to satisfy passing bats instead of human beings is pretty crazy, but adding channels is of very great value."  

If your personal taste prefers two expensive speakers I got no beef with that. It is the most expensive, least realistic way to recreate what the MUSICIANS actually did in the studio (not what the engineer palyed back on the desk. My layout is similar to the Tooles (as in Floyd), right down to having not one but TWO center channels and a VOG channel:

@kota1 ,

This was a topic of much debate back in the 70s. Those of us in the minimalist camp (the no tone controls crowd) were convinced that with the really good systems the center channel was detrimental. From the purist perspective it is. The center channel disrupts a systems potential for forming a proper image from the ideal listening position. It steals the magic. What the center channel does do is help a system form a satisfactory (no where near ideal) image from positions off center. The term many people use incorrectly is " a wider sweet spot." The end result is that it corrupts the actual sweet spot. There is no such thing as ideal imaging away from the actual sweet spot. However a system with controlled dispersion using linear arrays can provide a satisfactory image up to about 15 degrees off center while preserving the very best image dead center. This would include three listeners ( a 3 person sofa's worth) at the distance of the sweet spot, satisfactory for theater. This is the reason I have two rows of seating in my media room enough for 6 people to enjoy a movie. As far as audio is concerned three channel recordings are of no consequence as so few are and will be available. Analog R to R machines are a total waste of time and money. All you have to do is buy the 24/ 96 or 192 digital file and you will have spent eons less on a superior program source. 

We just watched the movie "Tar" starring Cate Blanchett. A very strange movie. The acting was wonderful but not a movie I would recommend to friends. 

@fleschler Wrote:

So it is rather rare to build foam core drivers then.

I would say it's not new. Electro-Voice Patrician 800 Had 30'' foam core woofer cones. By late 1961, Electro-Voice was ready to announce a 30" woofer incorporating a radically new cone material: polystyrene foam. Almost simultaneously, Jensen unveiled their "Polytec" speakers, also with expanded (foam) polystyrene cones. Meanwhile, two British firms were announcing the fruits of their efforts along similar lines. Leak with a "sandwich" speaker, and Rola Celestion with their "Colaudio" speaker. Other designs followed. 😎 See below: Mike

https://www.stereophile.com/content/farewell-paper-cone

@mijostyn

I totally respect where you are coming from and the debate I remember from the seventies was the value of 4 channels (quadrophonic) vs 2 (stereo). I don’t know that we are comparing apples to apples re: the center channel and music reproduction. Your philosophy of the center channel disrupting the proper image is the opposite of Bob Clearmountain’s (please check his creds here) and that is just one of many engineers/experts who prefer a three or more channel image. I agree re: 3 channel audio recordings being a non issue but there are many ways to integrate more than two channels. I agree that I can watch a movie with a sound bar or a pair of speakers and its better than the TV alone.

I don’t disagree with your preference for two excellent speakers, that’s all good. I disagree that the best strategy to reproduce music is with two speakers, any two speakers regardless of cost. I think the "chrome mountain/sound cannon" approach is the most profitable for the dealer and the most fun for baby boomers with disposable income. Look at all the threads here asking how to spend thousands of dollars with no questions asked about acoustics, it is almost crazy.

The "science" is available today to arrive at $$$$$ type performance on a beer budget. You need to treat your room $, use DSP and get the acoustics right $,
and setup an immersive audio system with a good receiver ($3-$5K), 8 good bookshelf speakers ($1-2K each), a CC ($1k to $2K) and a pair of good subs ($1K or so each +-). If you want to make it OTT add a high end DAC ($2-$5K) and a streamer.

This is 2023, Moores Law benefits consumers, to build a "stereo" like you would in the nineties makes 0 economic or sonic sense, but it can be a fun way to tinker around.

For example, look what Sony can do with a two channel signal via their 360 sound mapping tech, the most expensive receiver they sell comes in at around $3500:

https://www.youtube.com/live/eWBBoi3n_qQ?feature=share

@kota1 

Quadraphonic died rapidly because the technology at the time could not do it without marked compromise in 2 channel performance. To the serious audiophiles of the day it was a seriously bad joke. In the end it's sole purpose for being was to sell more equipment. Even now that the technology exists to do "surround sound" well, people interested in the highest levels of performance regard it strictly as a theater stunt. There might be a method of using two rear channels to enhance realism that I plan on exploring once I have the necessary equipment. The size of a venue from a sonic perspective is indicated by the delay of "late" reflections. The longer the delay the larger the venue. Two rear channels playing 40 to 50 dB down can be digitally delayed any period required to reproduce venue size from a jazz bar to a large indoor stadium. This could be used to increase the realism of live recordings without hurting image formation at least theoretically. 

If you have decent ears I can prove to you in a very short period of time that a center channel detracts from 2 channel image formation at its highest level. 

While I think it is totally unnecessary to spend the ridiculous money some people spend to get the highest levels of performance, you still have to spend quite a bit more than most people are willing to spend. I think there are very viable short cuts one can take such as building your own loudspeakers as long as you are willing to invest in the appropriate measuring devices and digital signal programming of crossovers and EQ. Avoid Vinyl if you can and put the money into a computer and large SS hard drive. This is a seriously more cost effective approach to collecting music. Hi Res streaming has also come a long way and is excellent for discovering new music.

Forget about Sony. My old TacT processor finally died a permanent death and my new DEQX Pre 8 is still at least a month away. Living without music is not an option so for $1500 I got a MiniDSP SHD preamp and UMIK-2. My old Tact in todays money would cost $8,000 -$10,000.  The SHD is not quite as transparent, but it does Room Control and subwoofer crossover every bit as well. With LS3 5As an amp like the Benchmark AHB2 and two subwoofers you can make a seriously high performance system. Higher than anything you could do 40, even 30 years ago.