2. speakers
  3. 1177210462

MultiChannel too complicated for most...

I've been on the gon for a little while now, posting and enjoying all the spectacular virtual systems. There is one thing I've noticed though. It's that many seem to associate the terms 2 channel and simple, especially when heading and detailing their virtual systems. I don't see it too often in threads, but every now and again it'll show up their as well.

Me being the multichannel guy I am, this small and most times overlooked detail seemed to jump out at me. Its been a passing thought for a while, but seems to be a somewhat valid question.

Now...before I go any further, this is not in insight a riot and bombard the moderators with request to have this thread pulled because it "potentially offends" 2 channel lovers. This is not that kind of posting, but just posing a question that has crossed my mind more times that one.

Do 2channel only audiophiles shun multichannel (discrete or DSP based) because they find it too complicated?

If the concept of thinking in 360 degrees (Multichannel) were simplified, for a lack of better terms, would multichannel be more accepted?
cdwallace

Showing 1 response by paracrine

paracrine
8 posts
 
I’ve always interpreted the word simple in system listings to circuit design.
Less is more philosophy in audio circuit design often means better components, capacitors, resistors, transformers, diodes, switches, relays, exc.
One only needs to look at the internals tube or SS of a simple system and see what Im talking about. Multi-channel systems are difficult for manufactures to keep cost down using expensive high tolerance parts in their design, which is often quite complex to those of a simple 2 channel system.
More to discover