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

"Does any one else have any pleasent multichannel experiences?"

I got a whole bunch of them and more every day.
See www.stereophile.com/musicintheround

Kal

I will not indulge you with my experiences since I have written about them in the column and those about which I have not yet written I will eventually. As for my system, it changes slowly and regularly. Currently, I have two systems:
System 1:
Paradigm Studio/60v3 (three for L,C,R)
Paradigm Studio/20v2 (two for surround)
Paragigm Servo15 with Velodyne SMS-1 EQ
Meridian 861 pre/pro
Bryston 9BST amp
Sony XA-777ES SACD player
Siim Moon Orbiter Universal player
Fujitsu P50 PDP

System 2:
B&W N802D (three for L,C,R)
B&W N804S (two for surround)
JL Fathom 113 Sub
BelCanto Pre6 MCH preamp
BelCanto REF1000 amps (x3)
Classe C3200 3channel amp
BelCanto S300 amp (stereo for surround)
Sony XA9000ES SACD player
BelCanto PL-1A Universal player
AudioVox 5.6" LCD display (for menus only)

But the really interesting stuff

Kal

Phil wrote: "Two channels can generate interferences, true. It's way true for MC too. Neither is perfect. But this defect is less tone-destroying than multichannel processing by a long shot."
This argument is a canard. There is no additional processing in true multichannel; tsimply, there are more channels handled in the same way as the two in stereo.

Kal

""There are more channels handled in the same way as the two in stereo." Well, there is that little defect too. How many multi-channel schemes are there? There's a reason every one of them requires a processor somewhere in the chain. Stereo puts it all in the medium and in your head."

There's no need for a processor in a multichannel system except, perhaps, in your head. ;-)

Kal

I will not indulge you with my experiences since I have written about them in the column and those about which I have not yet written I will eventually. As for my system, it changes slowly and regularly. Currently, I have two systems:
System 1:
Paradigm Studio/60v3 (three for L,C,R)
Paradigm Studio/20v2 (two for surround)
Paragigm Servo15 with Velodyne SMS-1 EQ
Meridian 861 pre/pro
Bryston 9BST amp
Sony XA-777ES SACD player
Siim Moon Orbiter Universal player
Fujitsu P50 PDP

System 2:
B&W N802D (three for L,C,R)
B&W N804S (two for surround)
JL Fathom 113 Sub
BelCanto Pre6 MCH preamp
BelCanto REF1000 amps (x3)
Classe C3200 3channel amp
BelCanto S300 amp (stereo for surround)
Sony XA9000ES SACD player
BelCanto PL-1A Universal player
AudioVox 5.6" LCD display (for menus only)

But the really interesting stuff are the recordings. ;-)

Kal

I was fascinated by it in the early 70's when I played around with the Hafler circuit. Earlier than that, as a child, I was influenced by a neighbor who had a 4 channel system back in the 50s(!). He used R2R stereo tape and set up the system in duplicate stereo with a speaker in each corner of the room.

My modern entry into it was when I was given a full Meridian Reference system for review (http://www.stereophile.com/digitalsourcereviews/201/index.html) and, from there, there was no turning back.

Kal

Phd: "In addition some of you are buying into more channels is better than less when time has proven that two channels for music is superior."
Time proves nothing nor do such assertions as yours. 2 channel has, since its beginning, been a compromise accepted only because of technical limitations. Now, if you want to assert that, for a given expenditure, you can get higher quality stereo componentry than if you spread that expenditure over 5+ channels, that's logic.

BTW, there's nothing to prevent one from playing stereo discs as two channel on ones multichannel system.

Kal

Agreed, Eldartford. Some people hear but won't listen.

Kal