Wanna take it to the next level? Buy MORE speakers!

@deep_333 

Why don’t you spend a minute or two describing to us “two channel guys” your awesome multi-channel rig. Obviously you have achieved this nirvana you describe.

Everything should be listed on my profile...Like i said, i didn't even spend that much on my multichannel rig. A lot of it is relatively affordable/high value stuff bought on closeout, nitpicked over time, etc (probably spent a whole lot more on stereo). I'm sure someone around here with deeper pockets could beat it out if he did explore that route.

I've been in the audio industry, both sales and as a buyer, for the better part of 40 years. Yes, I've heard multiple speaker arrangements optimized for both movies and music.  I thought the Synthesis facility in Northridge sounded the best of what I've heard (also went to France to hear Focal's offering, England for Bowers & Wilkins, as well as Lawrence, KS for Martin Logan's take on the concept). They all sounded fine but took me out of the performance. This isn't about "right" and "wrong", it's about preference. I have listened to literally thousands of setups in my lifetime, and a two channel configuration is what I prefer for music.  

“2 channel and surround are differen

They are not different. The ultimate hope of a 2 channel rig (as you spend more and more and more) is that it hopes to provide the soundfield, spatial nuance and detail characteristic of a correctly setup multichannel rig

I’m sure someone around here with deeper pockets could beat it out if he did explore that route.

@deep_333

First you say “it’s the same” then later admitted “it can be better - if spend more”.

And your title “Wanna take it to the next level? Buy MORE speakers” implies improvement for surround speakers vs 2 channel.

Surround “envelopement” and “fidelity” are two different objectives- one is NOT objectively (factually) better, but you may have personal preferences favoring one

@deep_333

First you say “it’s the same” then later admitted “it can be better - if spend more”.

And your title “Wanna take it to the next level? Buy MORE speakers” implies improvement for surround speakers vs 2 channel.

Surround “envelopement” and “fidelity” are two different objectives- one is NOT objectively (factually) better, but you may have personal preferences favoring one

@kennyc

Stereo and multichannel have the same sonic goals, in essence, w.r.t how a soundfield, spatial cues and detail are offered to a listener in a room... except stereo gets there half baked, multichannel optimized for music gets a whole lot further. It is not really a preference thing.

You see these manufacturers trying different tricks... putting additional tweeters behind their cost no object speakers, etc? (except speaker shall only be a measly 100k now)...Or that fpga code magic in some 70k dac to unlayer, unfold, create spatial cues, better detail, etc better than ever? Why do you think that is? If the number of speakers remains restricted to 2, well, it is only able to get so far. Even a mediocre horse could pull a carriage further than a super cadillac dog...

I said my multichannel rig can run circles around my own stereo rig (which costs magnitudes more) and beats out any cost no object stereo rig i’ve ever heard. In other words, i didn’t even spend that much on my multichannel rig and it is able to do so. Could it get beat by some guy’s cost no object multichannel rig? Maybe, it could.. I did hear a very expensive multichannel rig set up by Anthony Grimani/Grimani systems once in a huge room that blew everybody’s socks off. Maybe...his multichannel setup did a li’l better than my multichannel setup in that large room....But, the case remains that i’ve always been let down by all kinds of cost no object stereo rigs i’ve heard.

For example, let us suppose that a guy already has a pair of Mofi sourcpoint 8s or Borresen X1’s and 2 subs...These are high value, but, not very expensive speakers. All he would need is three more sourcepoint 8s or three more Borresen X1s, 3 additional channels of amplification and a processor worth its salt. I would prophesize that such an exploration could provide a much better outcome at a lower cost..... than the guy ditching his Borresen X1s altogether and buying a pair of Borresen M1s for a 100k instead (i.e., sticking with some stereo only upgradititis).

@deep_333 --

Interesting topic. Never heard a well set-up multi channel system to convince me of its sonic/musical merits (which is also saying, implicitly, that I’ve heard a range of bland ones), not to say there aren’t good ones out there.

As it is though to me the quality of reproduction doesn’t fall back on an added number of channels to aid the immersive experience (which can indeed sound distracting to my ears with music), but rather the core nature and quality of the two main channels + subs. Not because I’m an analogue "purist" - I use a digital source only in addition to a DSP-based fully active setup - but simply because the sound coming from 2 channels, and what has been invested into and "perfected" around them, is the more natural and "right" sounding to me.

A typical scenario implies that I would listen to a multi-channel system quite different from my own with regard to the specific components used (not least the speakers), with the more interesting and relevant experiment being the one that was made around a component-similar expansion of my existing setup and seeing how that would turn out. With a given budget though I’d still max out the potential of what I have (or would upgrade to) from a 2-channel approach rather throwing the same coins at a channel expansion, not to mention if it involves reshuffling the cards entirely with the choice of main speakers and subs into a more size friendly package (it’s a slippery slope, mon frère).

I have experimented with a stash of crossover components from GR research. 400 to 600 dollars at most (or say under a 1000 dollars) in crossover component upgrades gets the fidelity close to max (ime) and diminishing returns hit like a wall thereafter, as you go up in price. But, a crappy driver from a manufacturer is a crappy driver and there’s no fixing that...

Manufacturers have cheaped out on crossover components so badly that the illusion of crossover component quality being the main culprit exists.

Agreed on the importance of the quality of the drivers, keeping in mind first and foremost their proper design implementation and what this means in singling out a range of fitting items that aren’t necessarily the more expensive or "exotic" ones.

Coming down to it though you only get so far with the quality of the drivers and crossover parts when the latter is placed between the amp and drivers. Even the best passive crossover components can’t escape the fact that they’re impeding with the amp to driver interface, potentially much more so the more complex they are, and it also means only taking partial advantage of your amp’s performance envelope instead of having it looking into a purer load actively.

What some may feel is gained from a "purist," analogue approach with quality component passive crossovers to others is missing the bigger picture in not taking into account its negative effect with regard to amp to driver interfacing. The quality of a DSP acting as a digital crossover actively is not irrelevant, but from my chair its overall sonic impact is of a significantly more "benign" nature as a line level, prior-to-amplification measure compared to a passive configuration on the output side of the amp, which affects both amp and driver performance more severely.