How can you not have multichannel system

I found this posting over on Audio Asylum in the Hi-Rez forum:
"By all means, you should keep an open mind. And you or anyone else in this forum who is curious about multichannel has a standing invitation to hear my system. I am quite serious about this. I would welcome the opportunity to get your impressions. Just PM me, and we will make the arrangements. I live comfortably in downtown Philly (home of the World Champion Philadelphia Phillies)in a townhouse with a nice, large music room, 4 blocks East of the Kimmel Center, and I can provide free parking.

Just consider me a multichannel evangelist, because I think audiophiles and music lovers need to know about this. For the past year or so, I have been experiencing reproduced sound that is well beyond anything I thought possible in my 50 years as an audiophile. I started my hobby by building Dynakits in high school. I agree that well setup Mch systems are very hard to find for audition. Dealers have totally dropped the ball, as have audiophile magazines, except for Kal in Stereophile. Actually, pretty much the whole high end is out to lunch on this, which has given me a serious credibility problem with many high end manufacturers and magazines. Most (some exceptions) are just continuing to polish what they have been doing for years, as if stereo reproduction is as good as it gets. It isn’t, in my opinion, not compared to live performance. While stereo ever so slowly and incrementally approaches the asymptote of inherent performance limitations, hi rez Mch is a game changer in terms of realistic sonic reproduction. It’s not perfect, but it is way beyond any stereo I have heard regardless of price. I have heard quite a few systems that are many times more expensive and prestigious than my own.

Yes, music selection in stereo is orders of magnitudes greater than in Mch, but not in hi rez. For the past 5 years or more, most hi rez releases have been in Mch. For classical music (not other genres) there is a decent selection of very good Mch SACD’s – thousands – and new releases keep coming. Maybe we will see a lot more once Blu-ray music gets cranked up. So, right now I am enjoying the thrill of rebuilding a disc collection in the Mch format. Though I have over 1,500 CD’s and 2,500 LP’s, stereo just has no more appeal to me. I no longer buy it and seldom listen to it. It just does not satisfy me anymore for serious listening, great as many performances in stereo are.

If you are curious, my system is:

Oppo 980 Universal player (evolving soon to Oppo BDP-83 on the early adopter program) via HDMI

Integra DTC 9.8 controller with Audyssey Pro 3.0 EQ

Krell KAS-2 monoblocks

Bryston Powerpac 120

2 Parasound Halo A23’s

Martin Logan Prodigys, Claritys, Script i’s and a Stage

JL Audio Fathom f113 sub

Phono via Oracle Delphi, ET 2, Benz Ruby, PS Audio phono stage through Mark Levinson 380S line stage

PS Audio Powerplant Premier

Oh, yes, there is a Sony hi def TV, but 85% of my use of the system is with music, 95% of that classical.

I have also been in correspondence with my old friend Andy Quint, music reviewer for TAS. He is also heavily into Mch, and I am curious as to his high end, analog-centric Mch setup. Mine is, as you can see, based on a digital controller. Yes, it is a home theater piece, but I have discovered to my chagrin that our snobbish, high end attitudes toward home theater sound and Asian mass market gear are now totally wrong-headed. I used to be that way myself for a long time with justification. But, time marches on. Those home theater guys have made such rapid sonic progress in the last couple of years that it puts the high end utterly to shame, except perhaps in speakers and amps. And, price-wise what they can do for very little money is astounding. Anyway, Andy and I will also be exchanging listening sessions on each others’ systems in the near future.

Send me a PM. I’d really like to show you what I’ve got and how it sounds. It could change your life, as it has mine. Then again, it might not. You have to be the judge."



Great post, Fitz - Preach on, brother! (nt), posted on January 6,

Fitz pretty much summed up my view and did a much better job. Also, his credentials are impeccable. You naysayers should take up his offer to audition his system if in the area. He and I are 'joined at the hip'.

I don't like it as well. I have owned/listened to/auditioned many multichannel systems, and found that I liked stereo much better.

Fewer moving parts, and in most cases the music was recorded with the express purpose of reproducing it in stereo, I think that makes a difference.

I own both the SACD and 180g Vinyl versions of "Filmore" by the Allman Brothers. I would take the warm lifelike sound of the vinyl any day. The SACD is great, as are many other well done SACD's, but it just never jumped for me the way vinyl in stereo does, even when I owned an excellent (which I no longer do) multidisc player.

I love multi-channel for movies, it's a great gimmick. Truth be told, when I help friends set up home systems now, unless they have a dedicated theater room, or the rear speakers are already wired, I have them set up 3.1 systems. Never had anyone complain about it, in fact with the sophistication of the new recievers, they sound just as good in most cases as a system with surround speakers.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

the number of channels is less important than what is fed into them. multi channel does not solve the problem of mediocre components and problem recordings.

placing such emphasis upon multi channel is misplaced. the concern should be on recordings, preamps, amps, cable and speakers.

i dare say, a master analog tape pleyd through a $300 personal stereo (i have one) will sound better than any multi channel stereo that uses a cd as its source.