Pick your poison...2-channel or multi?


This post is just to get a general ideas among audiophiles and audio enthusiasts; to see who really likes what. Here's the catch!

If you were restricted to a budget of $10,000, and wanted to assemble a system, from start to finish, which format would you choose, 2 channel or mulichannel?

I'll go first and say multichannel. I've has to opportunity to hear a multichannel setup done right and can't see myself going back to 2-channel. I'm even taking my system posting down and will repost it as a multichannel system.

So...pick your poison! Which one will it be, 2-channel or multichannel.
cdwallace

Showing 1 response by jeffreybehr

"I've ha(d) (an) opportunity to hear a multichannel setup done right and can't see myself going back to 2-channel." You must have heard mine, CD! :-)

I love big-orchestra Classical and film music, and MC is REALLY 'where it's at' (as the semiliterate diddeeboppers say). MC sound is MUCH more spacious and natural sounding to me. The people who record big-orchestra stuff in MC seem to realize that we want the sounds of real orchestras playing in real spaces; hence they back the mics off a bit and do NOT play with them* (much, at least) during the performance. I have almost a hundred MC Classical and film discs and am buying more all the time.

$10,000? I'd still have Eminent Technology 8s in my system, a 6-channel analog preamp, and a separate poweramp, altho I might have to use a single MC poweramp instead of tubed separates.

* except DG in the Philharmonie; those MC recordings sound gain-ridden, as if the engineers/producers STILL can't stand the thought of having, say, a solo flute actually sound as if it's 10 or 15 feet farther back in the orchestra.
.