The mistake armchair speaker snobs make too often

@mijostyn

I totally respect where you are coming from and the debate I remember from the seventies was the value of 4 channels (quadrophonic) vs 2 (stereo). I don’t know that we are comparing apples to apples re: the center channel and music reproduction. Your philosophy of the center channel disrupting the proper image is the opposite of Bob Clearmountain’s (please check his creds here) and that is just one of many engineers/experts who prefer a three or more channel image. I agree re: 3 channel audio recordings being a non issue but there are many ways to integrate more than two channels. I agree that I can watch a movie with a sound bar or a pair of speakers and its better than the TV alone.

I don’t disagree with your preference for two excellent speakers, that’s all good. I disagree that the best strategy to reproduce music is with two speakers, any two speakers regardless of cost. I think the "chrome mountain/sound cannon" approach is the most profitable for the dealer and the most fun for baby boomers with disposable income. Look at all the threads here asking how to spend thousands of dollars with no questions asked about acoustics, it is almost crazy.

The "science" is available today to arrive at $$$$$ type performance on a beer budget. You need to treat your room $, use DSP and get the acoustics right $,
and setup an immersive audio system with a good receiver ($3-$5K), 8 good bookshelf speakers ($1-2K each), a CC ($1k to $2K) and a pair of good subs ($1K or so each +-). If you want to make it OTT add a high end DAC ($2-$5K) and a streamer.

This is 2023, Moores Law benefits consumers, to build a "stereo" like you would in the nineties makes 0 economic or sonic sense, but it can be a fun way to tinker around.

For example, look what Sony can do with a two channel signal via their 360 sound mapping tech, the most expensive receiver they sell comes in at around $3500:

https://www.youtube.com/live/eWBBoi3n_qQ?feature=share

@kota1 

Quadraphonic died rapidly because the technology at the time could not do it without marked compromise in 2 channel performance. To the serious audiophiles of the day it was a seriously bad joke. In the end it's sole purpose for being was to sell more equipment. Even now that the technology exists to do "surround sound" well, people interested in the highest levels of performance regard it strictly as a theater stunt. There might be a method of using two rear channels to enhance realism that I plan on exploring once I have the necessary equipment. The size of a venue from a sonic perspective is indicated by the delay of "late" reflections. The longer the delay the larger the venue. Two rear channels playing 40 to 50 dB down can be digitally delayed any period required to reproduce venue size from a jazz bar to a large indoor stadium. This could be used to increase the realism of live recordings without hurting image formation at least theoretically. 

If you have decent ears I can prove to you in a very short period of time that a center channel detracts from 2 channel image formation at its highest level. 

While I think it is totally unnecessary to spend the ridiculous money some people spend to get the highest levels of performance, you still have to spend quite a bit more than most people are willing to spend. I think there are very viable short cuts one can take such as building your own loudspeakers as long as you are willing to invest in the appropriate measuring devices and digital signal programming of crossovers and EQ. Avoid Vinyl if you can and put the money into a computer and large SS hard drive. This is a seriously more cost effective approach to collecting music. Hi Res streaming has also come a long way and is excellent for discovering new music.

Forget about Sony. My old TacT processor finally died a permanent death and my new DEQX Pre 8 is still at least a month away. Living without music is not an option so for $1500 I got a MiniDSP SHD preamp and UMIK-2. My old Tact in todays money would cost $8,000 -$10,000.  The SHD is not quite as transparent, but it does Room Control and subwoofer crossover every bit as well. With LS3 5As an amp like the Benchmark AHB2 and two subwoofers you can make a seriously high performance system. Higher than anything you could do 40, even 30 years ago.

@ditusa I read the too from 1962. 61 years later, how many companies use foam core drivers? Back then if was a handful. Also, comments concerning smaller boxes result in greater problems reproducing bass. Well, after hearing the Acora Acoustics pair of 7" paper mid-woofers in the low 30’s in a big open room, I was astonished. It’s a box, but made of special granite, not any cellulose product. Back in 1962, there were no computer modeling of speakers (that I know of). Today, it’s standard operating procedure for many functions in developing speakers.  Polystyrene drivers are generally disfavored for quality music reproduction today after scanning Google.  Maybe Zellaton's unique foam based drivers are just as advanced as many paper based drivers are today.  

My own room has built-in activated charcoal bass filtering proposed by J.Gordon Holt. Anyone else comment on this type of bass filtering?

I am suprized that nobody mention Dr. Choueri BACCH filters...

Nobody needs multi channels system...

With the BACCH filter with no lost in TIMBRE , we can have complete holographic  virtual room system representation for our SPECIFIC ears with a stereo system , speakers or/and  headphones with no difference between speakers and headphone listening in perception...

Think about it and inform yourself...😊

@mijostyn

Quadraphonic died rapidly because the technology at the time could not do it without marked compromise in 2 channel performance.

Today you can get a Jim Fosgate designed 4 channel upmixing matrix in a tube preamp (Black Ice F360) that markedly improves 2 channel performance, see this video:

https://youtu.be/noe6GsyYDJc

Even now that the technology exists to do "surround sound" well, people interested in the highest levels of performance regard it strictly as a theater stunt.

"Surround sound" is so last decade, today surround sound has been superseded by immersive audio. News about this in the pro community can be seen here:

https://www.mixonline.com/tag/atmos

If you have decent ears I can prove to you in a very short period of time that a center channel detracts from 2 channel image formation at its highest level.

I just had my hearing tested and its perfect so I’m "all ears". I own a fantastic two channel preamp ( the Sony TAZH1-ES) and if you look at the two channel measurements of my room (posted) it reproduces the two channel response curve I prefer in an exemplary fashion (maybe better than yours? Please post your in room FR to compare if you dare). Let me know your experiment and I’ll do it, then I’ll post an experiment for you as a follow up, fair?

you still have to spend quite a bit more than most people are willing to spend.

This is a deal breaker that actually proves my point, trying to create the illusion of a live music performance with just two speakers is a fools errand. See how the goal posts have moved and artists are now using the same tech I use in my media room to deliver immersive sound to every seat in 5000 seat venues (hint, it needs more than 2 speakers LOL). You can build a system to reproduce immersive audio in someones home for less than $10K. You can blow it out as a SOA system for far less than it takes to build a stereo SOA system (I think the OP has invested over 6 figures if I’m not mistaken and I can’t imagine the time it takes to DIY it):

https://www.mixonline.com/live-sound/venues/on-the-cover-las-vegas-takes-immersive-live-part-1