Why is 2 Channel better than multi-channel?

We all have a pair of ears which has 48 auditory canals, looks like the industry is trying its best to reach the ultimate goal of offering 40.8 channel HT system, I will wait for that patiently. Until then, I will continue to use the 48 auditory canals in my ears to create the surround sound effect from the 2 ch system.

Viggen,

Definitive produces a full-range center speaker....
As does KEF. Cant remember the model numbers but there are full range "Center speakers" out there.

I think im going to skip the "Center speaker" all together and add full range identical to my fronts.

I personally like to keep all 7 speakers identical.

Quad,
Man, if they come out with a 40.8 system, im selling everything and will buy a bose accoustimass, then get myself brainwashed so i forget i was ever in this rotton hobby. :)

The holy grail is a cohesive soundfield with holisonic acoustical presentation that allows the listener the freedom to occupy that space without trying to suspend his disbelief that he is experiencing a mechanical event. We all are seeking that " you are there presence " that sitting before live musicians affords. After the mastering of the equiptment chain and learning the specifics of speaker placement we are left with the most compelling issue that is inescapable: the damn room and its effects on our work. The decades of slaving over just 2 speakers has been replaced by the near impossibility of integrating 4, 5 6 7 or god help us , more speakers in that same space. We have been so reluctant to utilize dsp for fear of corrupting the purity of our work that much r and d was lost . Tact came along and shut most of us up. Rives is taking the lead too and we all need their help as the equation expands . My audio listening prowess dramatically increased as i have spent countless hours working on my own multichannel system and I swear , my Aerial 20 t s sound just fine all by themselfs thank you but still I forge ahead seeking that grail myself. Maybe we just need something to occupy ourselfs as most of us here on this site are focused or obsessive already and it keeps us interested in our hobby. I neeed to wash my hands, again.

I think there is just less of a demand on the sonics of a multichannel setup, due to the nature of its existance, ands its natural ability to overcome lack of imaging or soundstage by adding speakers.

Instead of having two speakers running constantly creating a large soundstage and imaging etc etc, you have multiple channels. Why do you need imaging if the sound is coming from the proper direction?
I think the emphasis of High end theater is way too demanding, i think multichannel was designed so the average joe could have enveloping sound without all the needed speaker placement yada yadda. and i dont think multi channel was ever really intended for audiophiles, but more for the mass market?

sure, sacd and DVD-a are multichannel, but untill these came out, multi channel music was just logic processors attempting to overcome the shortcomins of bad accoustics and speaker placement, or to creat a "Wow gee" affect on consumers expectation of more is better

multichannel music probably woulda gone the way of the DODO if it wasnt for surround sound movies. However, its probably here to stay in some form or another because multichannel setups are becoming more and more common in households.

The multichannel cconcept is largly leaned twards movies, and it does not take nearly as precise speaker placement to get spectacular sound as it does with 2 channel.

If course, im not debating the fact that good equipment and well done placement with room treatments can make it sound better, however, i believe that the increase in sonics between a $1000 HT in a box and a $55,000 with good placement is far less significant than the difference in sonics between a $1000 stereo setup and a $55,000 stereo with proper placement and treatments.

Sometimes i feel like HT setup is just easier to obtain the great sound becuase you are dealing with sound effects, and have extra speakers to cover the shortcomings of imaging and soundstage,

Sometimes, i wonder weather or not HT was ever meant to be High End as 2channel was. Sometimes i dont think it was. if you look at the "how much does your system retail for" audiophiles have a trend of spending more on 2channel than HT. Sometimes i think comparing them is like apples to oranges.

its easy to get a HT to sound good. its harder to get a 2ch to sound good. Most good 2ch setups DO sound better than multichannel setups though.

just my humble opinion, no real research on this, just what i figure from noticing the sonic differences and main uses for stereo vs. multichannel.

Im just presenting some ideas that i have not really seen yet.

any thoughts?

Now, where the hell did i put that spell checker?

Most people have no idea how to go about setting up a good sounding multichannel music system, they also do not have the extra room it requires. As near as I can figure out from what I read on the internet, most people think Hometheater and multichannel music are the same thing, they are not and can never be to the audiophile. Forget the television, forget the baby center channel, forget the out of phase rear speaker types that are in many hometheaters, this setup is for movies and will never sound more than: FUN. As long as HT/MC music are grouped together in mind and system, two channel will get the audiophile nod as better.

I dont think i can accept the position stated above that by the very nature of the multichannel configuration , imaging constraints are aleviated. This is certainly just my opinion but quite the opposite is what I have concluded.....sorry. What I am getting at is that the adding of more speakers and channels of music contaminates the imaging without the meticulous protocol of proper integration . That trial and error journey has created some serious late night hair pulling sessions but breakthroughs eventually evolve . I understand Slappys thinking in that with movie soundtracks that rely on sound effects, imaging problems are ameliorated with the addition of more speakers but I evaluate multichannel strictly on music coherency and once you are somewhat satisfied with your work there , movies sound excellent. I agree with him that 2 channel smokes mullti in all but a few demonstrations I have been a part of { including ces shows } and that itself illuminates the issue of the great difficulty we are facing in mulltichannel integration.

correction. Multi... not mullti. got excited for a moment.

Brainwater...Try to listen to Tacet DVD-A D107..Mozart Flute Quartets. You can't match this sound with any 2 channel system. Don't judge multichannel by inappropriately or poorly mastered discs.

Eldartford , I look forward to that opportunity and will make efforts . I agree wholeheartedly with you in that a poorly mastered multichannel disc cannot be salvaged by any means for the most part . The thrust of my observations about the difficulty in achieving coherency in multichannel sound presentation was just that : its difficulty. I am a firm believer in multichannel and by evidence of my investment in my "theatre " / multichannel setup , I am in this to win. Its just that Slappy is damn near correct in what he is saying. Note the word near. I keep stumbling into this scenario whereby frustration in the results keeps many from appreciating what a properly set up multichannel system can be like. I am a certified soundfield coherency freak and my relentless pursuit of perfection leaves me thirsty which in turn keeps me studying and experimenting. There is and has been a dearth of knowlege and readily available articles that articulate a definitive and widely agreed upon formula to once and for all settle the question of how to get sonic bliss in a multichannel configuration. Widescreen Review was one of the first to insist on ditching bi or dipolar surrounds in favor of 5 identical , equidistant { from listening position } full range speakers in the room. Equal speaker legnths were part of that equation I seem to remember as well as equal amplification . . These articles have been long forgotten by many as the magazine has been obsessed with video for a couple of years now but they did indeed lead the charge in advocating this setup. Its a near unrealistic goal as most simply cannot do much of it ; but we should try. I would not give up multichannel and done properly , can and does out perform 2 channel with good software. I like G Holts articles too by the way. Eldartford , what are some other good recordings in multichannel you like?

this one is harder to answer than one would think. It has been my experience that I prefer multi channel, but when I have company over the preferance is for 2-channel. Folks are more visual than audio and too many speakers make for more discussion of the system than of the movie...which might mean that we got it all wrong.

Brainwater...A fair question that I am not prepared to answer without some thought. It would be nice to share a list with rankings from 1 to 10.

IMHO every Tacet disc ranks near 10. I have some others (DVD-A and SACD)in the 6 to 8 range but I don't remember them off the top of my head. There are a few near 1. Oh well... it's a new thing and it may take a while to get it right.

I am also a "soundfield freak". My ability to hear the highest frequencies has surely diminished with age, but the ability to sense spatial effects is as good as ever, so it becomes more and more important.

As long as the mass market goes and buys HT-in-a-box setups audiophile recordings in MC will not be very accessible. Joe Best Buy likes to turn his head around when his cube shaped speakers play behind his head and say "Wow this sure sounds better than my old Techincs table!" For the very few who are able to afford good identical speakers all around and a room that has good acoustical treatments and size there will always be some great recordings available in SACD or DVD-A but those people don't buy enough to fuel a charge for high quality MC audio discs, especially when those that don't know better are still willing to spend and extra $5 over the cost of a regular CD to have a poorly-mixed MC recording. Give me VINYL! Acousticsounds.com can get virtually any album worth listening to and with a high quality turntable, a good amp, a good pre, and 2 good speakers you have the best sound you ever need. I don't want to be in the middle of the musicians, I want to sit in front of them and hear them play; unfortunately people like me are the minority so MC recordings that use the surrounds for ambiance are few and far between.

Bmw328iproject...Take a look at my post "Multichannel and why". Your reaction to multichannel is typical of people who have not experienced the full potential of the media, but have been exposed only to stupidly mastered discs.

Multichannel will succeed, if only because of automobiles, where rear speakers have long been standard equipment.

I do my part by buying every "audiophile" multichannel disc that I can lay my hands on.

As an avid car audio competitor I have to disagree with your thoughts on multi-channel music in cars. Even if the technology is released at a reasonable price for the car, it is still necessary that a center speaker be installed (which is normally a pretty hard install job that is very expensive) so unless tons of cars start coming off of the line with DVD-A or SACD players and compatible speaker setups it won't really take on. Also consider that DTS and DD5.1 decoders have been in cars now for 3 years but most people who have them still don't have the center channel. Why mix this perfectly to suit the car customers especially when the average car has pretty bad acoustics compared to home? Even if 10 years from now SACD or DVD-A multichanel audio is standard in all cars will most people use it? Will people care that their car could play a DVD-A disc when it can also play cheaper regular CD's? With more and more people downloading music and DVD-A and SACD unburnable will people really spend $20 and up for something they can get in 2 channels for free? Will these car audio setups be good enough that people require the new MC discs to be mixed well? Will artists spend even more time in the studios to ensure that their music is mixed properly in 5.1 when mixing in 2 has been hard enough already? 5.1 and up will all survive for movies but music is just not necessary and most people don't care enough about the mixing of MC music for it to ever become a true audiophile format. It will always be dominated by the best buy crowds who think it's cool but who wouldn't know stereo imaging if it hit them in the head.

What Eldartford is saying is correct in that gen x-y ers are growing up in automobiles and that is where they are cutting their " audio teeth". They spend gobs of cash on car systems and the sense of surround is mandatory and the progression to dvd-a discs will be the next rage . This is where dvd-a will take off . I am in the sacd camp however and hate to witness this fight .

I'm joining this thread a little late, but have some thoughts on how the recording industry could properly use surround channels to optimize music recording. This is based on the idea that music has been historically recorded in 2-channel formats, and I'm including some thoughts about recording. I'm not sure if anyone is familiar if any of this has been tried or is being done, but would be curious to know. Let me preface all of this by saying I am no expert, so if some of my terminology is not accurate, please forgive me.

When sound is recorded, microphones are used. One of the simplest ways to make a stereo recording is with a "coincident pair" of microphones. This involves placing a pair of microphones at roughly what the listening distance would be away from the sound source in a criscross patern. One mic feeds the left channel, the other the right. Pretty simple. The next thing to do would be to add "room ambiance." In many pop music recordings, this is done with electronic signal processors to the recorded signal. However, if one were to, say, record a string quartet with a coincident pair in a small auditorium (left and right channel) and then place two additional microphones, one on either side of the rear of the room, could these not be used to provide "surround" information for the rear channels? I suppose additonal mics could also be placed for "back" channel information in a 7.1 setup. Not really sure what to send to the center channel, though.

Anyhow, I just wanted to throw this out there.

Cheers,
Mike

Mike, This is an interesting read on how one new multichannel recording was done...http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue9/eliasdsd.htm

Dave

When I used to sell audio, I noticed that there were two kinds of customers.....those interested in music and those who seek sound effects. This division seems to have been exacerbated by the introduction of multi-channel.

And Eldartford brings to the forefront an important observation too. Home theater is pretty much car stereo brought indoors.

Regardless of its theoretical potential, HT remains a poorly executed medium. And absurd. Does anyone remember quadrophonic headphones?

smear

any more channels not set up correctly get smeared

how many recordings really take advantage of multi channel

usually it's the solo projected to the back

more is not better

It's Not, according to recent developments at IAR.
International Audio Review! See 30 page review.

They say, the Arcam AV8 and DVD 27 is the ultimate.

They review amplifiers, speakers, turntables,
but there doesnot seem to be amy preamplifer reviews;
I suspect because they feel the there is no use, when
the arcam setup properly kicks everything elses butt!

I'm thinking of packing it in with two channel and convert what I can to home theatre.
I find there is so many great concerts to watch and listen to that is seems rather boring to just listen to two channel.

It seems that my extremely cheap home theatre system
sounds 85% of my extremely expensive two channel.

I guess there is diminishing returns on high end.

I now what your thinking, my high end gear is crap right.
Wrong, my friends think my system sounds better than most stuff in the so-called hiend stores. Maybe that's why their my freinds haha.

Seriously I think that most will agree that your home theatre system is in around the same level compared to your two channel stuff.

So I think it's possible that the Arcam might be that good!

What sayest thou?

Because you can't teach an old dog new tricks. If someones first listening experience was with high quality multichannel they would feel 2 channel was really lacking. I'm not talking about standard equipment with unlike speakers I'm talking about the best of both worlds. The same applies to analog verses digital. Analog offers 12bits maximum resolution while it's conceivable to reach twice the info on digital. Go figure

Please explain "Analog offers 12bits maximum resolution."

There are no bits in analog, I am confused (but it's not the first time).

Oh this is easy. Because their are so many obstacles involved in gettin the sound from your speakers to your ears. If you have only two speakers screwing it up rather than 5, 7 or even the dreadful 10 the outcome is alot less noticable to your audible perception than multichannel. there is to much going on in regards to phase, power consumption needs and room acoustics for a multichannel system. No one pays attention to acoustics in two channel system never mind a multichannel set-up. Of course this is just a general statement. There those that have paid great attention to wonderful multichannel setup. And to those i tip my hat. But, by-inlarge multichannel will always sound a lot less involving and way to destracting than most two channel systems.

look at my system I just finally posted the pics tell me what you think about my 5 channel setup.

"Why is 2 Channel better than multi-channel?"

'Tain't. Music arrives at our 2 ears from all directions. Five channels gets it lots righter than just 2.
.

The next logical step for this guy is a better AV pre/pro, perhaps with "dirrect analog bypass" for his better sources.
Try an older Krell HTS2. I think this has "throughput's" for analog pass-through...and the digital is unbeaten for DD/DTS and PCM music.
Otherwise, spend less on a more dynamic DD/DTS pre-pro, and do a 2 channel dedicated pre for your 2 channel music(looping the two together).

Music is best (I feel) in 2 channel, but for movies, providing you have good speakers,and Amps all around) in my opinion 2 channel can never,,,NEVER equall the experience of 5.1,6.1,7.1.....true Audiophiles' should come to understand that movies dont fall into this realm, and thus should get on the HT bandwagon, for movies 2 channel is an antiquated idea and format...and ignoring the new technology is doing yourself an injustice....remember we are not AMISH!

Hey Jeffreybehr. With 2 channel, music still arrives at our 2 ears from all directions. And live music *starts* its journey to our ears typically from in front of us, not all around us. So what's your point?

It's not necessarily better. HT is needed for movies, otherwise, you may have difficulty hearing the dialogue at times. What's nice about the HT preamps for stereo recordings, is you can add effects like time delay, which make older recordings sound better. The sub bass adds more bass -- it all depends on what you like to hear.

I agree with Chadnliz. Bottom line is that without HT you'll have trouble hearing the dialogue at times, it makes no sense to swear by two channel for moives. On the other hand, there's no need to make it into a Zen event, please just listen with our ears.

Interesting thread. After having full HT system (Lex DC1, Logan QuestZ fronts, Logos center, SL3 rears, pair of 15" Velo FSR15 subs, etc............

I have gone back to straight two-channel. Why is it I have no trouble whatsoever hearing dialog in movies? Do tell.

Best,

Paul :-)

I dont know, but to each his own I guess.

In my opinion 2 channel movies might as well be mono, compared to multi-channel for movies, that would be my take on this topic

2 channel movie= Mono
multi-channel HT= stereo
To me it is that big of a diffrence
I wond if a few decades ago people did this with AM-VS-FM?

I'll tell ya why MOST PEOPLES 2 channel system might be better. For one, they're more likely to get lucky getting 2 speakers setup well than 6 or more!!! You couple that with the "ill-placed/setup" subwoofer situation, mating with the other speakers(amoung the other acoustical challenges), and you've got a "hodgepodge" of compromises going on! Really, most people can't get 2 speakers setup for great sound, let alone multiples.
Also, most multichannel recordings are probably thouroughly mixed together, as opposed to pure 2/3 channel mic recordings. Then you add the need for more processing/decoders, and so on, and you get the idea...

I agree with Chad,2 ch for music,multi ch for movies,also a matter of economics for me, if i tryed to equal the quality components in multi ch as i have in my 2 ch,i would have to work 80 hrs a week,give up food,gas,software,cable Tv,,,,,,,,,,

If some one wants multi channel for home theater thats one thing, its not that hard to get a jaw dropping movie experience, but as far as HDCD and critical multi channel music listening everything is important.
That being said most are best off using 2 channel for music and getting center and backs plus sub for movies

just because it's harder (and more expensive) to get multichannel set-up properly does NOT make 2-channel better!

go listen to peter gabriel's up, roxy music's avalon, bryan ferry's boys and girls, and pink floyd's dark side of the moon on a properly set-up multichannel system and then listen to it again in 2-channel and tell me if you can honestly prefer the two-channel.

it seems that people once heard one thing in m/c that they didn't like or heard it on an improperly set up multichannel system and are using at a basis to forever bash it, regardless of whatever strides it makes.

this is the same as preferring mono over stereo because you heard stereo once with a system that had the speakers on uneven plains, bad cd-player, dirty ac, etc.

Alos too many have these super over-priced 2 channel rigs and cant afford to up-grade so they just shit on anything that isnt 2 channel ignorance is bliss

"Hey Jeffreybehr. With 2 channel, music still arrives at our 2 ears from all directions. And live music *starts* its journey to our ears typically from in front of us, not all around us. So what's your point?"

My point is that an equally good 4- or 5-channel system simply gets it 'righter' than the same-quality 2-channel system. I have NEVER heard a 2-channel system that sounds as natural and spacious when playing big-orchestra music as my own 5-channel system. I can't comment on multichannel pop mixes since I listen to none, but the vast majority of multichannel recordings of big orchestras I've heard sound more natural and real--more like The Absolute Sound of a real orchestra playing in a real space--than the BEST 2-channel recordings I've ever heard, and they sound MUCH better than the multimono, multimiced, knob-twiddled 2-channel recordings that comprise about 95% of the classical recordings we usually get.

No matter how great a 2-channel system sounds, and some of them can and do sound VERY good, adding 3 appropriately matching channels to it will improve its realism and naturalness...IMO, of course.

I'm damn glad the industry has come up with the hi-res, multichannel media of DVD-A and SACD. They may not be selling lots, but QUALITY never has--witness the gross revenues of the brain-dead boom-and-crash movies aimed at adolescent diddeeboppers compared with those of some movies one may have to THINK about, such as 'Off the Map', 'Sideways', or 'The Wild Parrotts of Telegraph Hill'.

I suspect those of you who dis multichannel-music reproduction may never have heard a great-sounding one. If you're ever in Phoenix, look me up.
.

to add to jeffrebehr's offer - if you're in austin/san antonio area, look me up.

by the way, nice system there, jeff!

OH! So what you are saying is that you like it better. That's quite different from offering a theoretical reason why it *is* intrinsically better, which is what I took you to be offereing when you said 'Music arrives at our 2 ears from all directions. Five channels gets it lots righter than just 2', as an apparant explanation of why 5 channel is better than two. That explanation would go just as well (or badly) for 10 channel rather than 5, 17 rather than 13, and n+1 rather than n.

Anyway, if you are just saying it sounds better, maybe so. But that doesn't answer or even address the OP's question at all. It just contradicts its implication.

Rnm4

TYVM, Lazarus. It started as a 2-channel audio system; I added the multichannel stuff for movies, but the multichannel classical and film music sounded SO good--natural, spacious--that my in-remission audiofoolia reared its ugly head. I replaced the universal-disc player, the preamp, ALL (about a dozen, I think) speakers, all 3 poweramps, all the IC and speakercable, etc.

It's now the best-sounding AUDIO system I've ever heard...but I don't go searching for hi-end audio systems to listen to. :-)
.

Rnm4, that was deeeeeeeep man!
I'm a simpleton, and eat Cheerios and such. Could you repeat all that again for me in "simpleton terminology" I'm not sure I got all of what you said there.
I only read your post once however. Maybe that's why...duhu!

Could it be all the digital processing circuitry which degrades multi-channel sound? I recently bought a "top of the line" Bryston SP1.7 multi-channel (pre-amp/processor with analog bypass) to use with my Mcintosh MC501 monos and driving Apogee Duetta II's. I compared it to a Cary SLP-98P tube pre-amp in 2-channel mode. The bottom line - the Bryston is up on Ebay right now. The Bryston is certainly one of the best mutli-channel units out there, but it did not perform better than the 2-channel Cary... my 2 cents...Bob

I listen to two channel sound (w/Sub)for critical listening and use the front three channels (w/Sub)for "enjoying the music". There is a difference to which is better due to the fact that some recordings are better suited for different systems.

System is Mcintosh MX 132, Mcintosh Mc402, and MC202 (Bridged for Center Channel). Speakers are M/L Aeris I with Cinema Center. Sub is Martin Logan Depth (I have it hooked up for two channel sub as well as LFE through Processor.)

System is very smooth. While in three channel mode the Air Blends somewhat, the smoothness more than compensates. All in All, a great system either way. the two channel provides more of the audiopyile music listening experience with the seperation of instruments, tight tuneful base, etc, etc, etc.

Could not be happier with the Mac Amps. The extra power on the M/L is greatful on certain recordings.

In my world for sound quality, I do not spin analog. My terrain is listening to 2 & 4 track factory pre-recorded open reel tapes. This is the way music was and is recorded.
And I don't care how many channels you have, 4,5,30... nothing will beat the sound of a 7&1/2 two track tape.....nothing. When I invite friends who listen to my system the first time, they look at the acoustic side pannels and think that they are speakers. Extra speakers means that your system needs the extra drivers to fully image, mine doesn't.

i listen to two channel only for music, have a linn 5140
set up aktiv with 5120 aktiv middle, but only room for 5110 for rear. run cary dvd 6 for both music and movies. when i bypass the processor, rotel 1098, i get very good 2 channel sound, but when i am at my office i liste to a 8 rear old ATI Little boy amp and a old denon hdcd cd player with variable ouput straight in, thru a pair of totem
arros. both sytems sing and are sifferent. hte stage and imaging in my minimalistic office system is great, and the depth and room filling sound at home is fantastic. frankly,
I haven't had too many bands play behind me, so the multi channel stuff isn't too interesting to me. I get the room affects that one would expect without using extra speakers. actually, 5 channel stereo and matrix souurounds always sounded better to me, but for parties only.

I like the arguments for and against however, and if i had the big dough, I'd jsut have a few rooms to my liking and just create each one, but you do what you can.

For what it's worth...

When I listen to music I have to have it coming from in front of me. It just seems artificial to think I'll have musicians behind me. The band, orchestra, etc, is always in front of me. So, for me personally, I just can't listen to music on a surround type setup - it just seems fake... I'm not knocking the folks who do - I'm strictly speaking about myself - I just can't enjoy the music unless it's from a 2-channel setup... I'm sure it's psychological but I've never been able to think of it any other way... It doesn't matter how good the surround system is - in my brain it computes as fraud so my listening ears just write it off as something "other than" authentic... That in no- way means it doesn't sound good - it just doesn't sound authentic...

Just my 2-pence worth...

Dwl...Did you know that there is a rather extensive genre of music called "antiphonal" where several groups of musicians are situated around the audience, some behind? This music got lost when artificial recorded sound was invented because that came only from one place. Multichannel makes it possible to properly hear this music. I also made an interesting discovery when listening to a SACD of Bach organ fugues played in a cathedral that has several organs. This music is obviously "antiphonal", although it has (to the best of my knowledge) never been described as such, probably because there are so few multiple organ installations. The antiphonal aspect gives these "war horse" works a new dimension (pun intended).

In small groups such as classical chamber music, or jazz jam sessions, the musicians are often all around you, and simple stereo does not (to use your word) "authentically" reproduce the experience.

And then, even for an orchestral work, there is ambience.

So, in summary, I think you should open your mind a bit. You really don't know what you are missing. (But don't use elcheapo surround speakers, or you will be disappointed).

Hi Eldartford,

Thanks for the info… I’ve never really heard of antiphonal setups… I have a Bang & Olufsen system that plays in surround mode. B&O used to use a matrix-quad system years ago. It expanded the music quite a bit. The system was still more of a 2 channel enhanced system than a surround though…

I now have a set of Pipedream’s Model 15’s powered by a VAC Avatar Super using a Resolution Audio’s Opus 21 DAC and transport. I’ve put on those surround sound tuning CD’s that shift the music through different stages to test the system’s ability to place music – geesh – I think that make’s sense… - Honestly, the system has a very established separation and very clear positioning.

When playing a typical decent CD the performance is outstanding. In fact, there are many times when I can look directly at the speakers and cannot hear the music coming from them at all – yet, the music is playing. It is as if the performers are truly there in front of me. I usually listen to my music very late between 11pm and 2am or sometimes I just get up around 3 or 5am so I can kick-back and listen. It’s a great way to start the day… The music completely surrounds me – yet – the performance is always in front me – on stage and that’s just the way, I guess, it makes sense in my brain or listening ear…

One of the best and surprising things about these Pipes – it doesn’t matter how loud I drive the system… The sound stage never really changes – the music simply gets louder but the sound-stage doesn’t travel past me or seem like it’s blowing in my face – sort-of speak. That in my opinion is truly incredible. I was listening to Tchaikovsky’s 1812 Overture one night on about 4 (1-10 volume)– which is typically very, very loud but with some symphonies that works great very filling but not over powering… When those @#$@#$ cannon’s went off – I almost put skid marks in my drawers… no kidding – I totally forgot about them cannons and I practically fell out of my chair… It was one of those moments when I just started laughing because it was so unexpected and “shocking” when it happened…

I listen to music on the surround system everyday but it just seems “enhanced.” I will admit that a live concert CD or HD type sometime sounds more realistic on my surround system. Mainly because it allows for the noises of the crowd and the reverb to sort-of fill in the blanks. However, when I’m just listening to recorded pieces – my 2-channel is the only thing that fills my soul and removes the daily grind from my brain… Maybe it’s because I used to play in a band years ago so I’ve got that burned in my head… I also have to admit that I’ve never really had the opportunity to listen to music on a good system other than my B&O. I’d love to though… I live in Southern Maryland… If anyone has a good surround system for their music, I’d love to give it a listen...!

Thanks for the response and I’ll definitely keep an open mind – hmm, my wife says my mind wanders a lot already though – so I best not keep it too open… :-)

Thanks
David

Dwl...Your mind, it seems, is definitely open. May I suggest that any matrix multichannel system (and I was heavily into that once) is very inferior to true discrete multichannel like DVDA or SACD. Also your two channel setup is excellent.

I think that there are two important aspects to sound reproduction: first... the sonic qualitiy (distortion, frequency response, etc.) and secondly...spatial. Multichannel addresses the second aspect, and this can be implemented with top of the line equipment, or with elcheapo stuff.

Spatial effectiveness can vary greatly even with straight stereo. Some speakers image much better than others, and planar speakers (which I like) differ most greatly from box speakers in their spatial reproduction character.

As I have mentioned before, I was around when stereo was introduced, and it got much the same reception from monaural audiophiles as multichannel does today. The more things change the more they stay the same.