How can you not have multichannel system

if the purpose of a stereo system is to recreate , as close as possible, the experience of attending a live music event, 4 pairs of appropriate speakers, e.g., electrostatics, may be preferable to 1 pair.

if one is concerned with the elements of music, pitch, timbre and harmonics, i fail to see how "additional channels" can reduce errors in reproduction of timbre.

spatial effects are not components of music. it would seem that additional channels can provide spatial cues, but a tenor sax should still sound like a tenor, not an alto.

perhaps the issue is not 2 channel vs multi channel, but rather two speakers vs more than 2 speakers.

i have heard a stereo system featuring 4 pair of quad 57 which creates a very natural, timbrally realistic presentation.pace, i would bet that 4 pair of say apogee duetta signatures, or other decent panel speakers is preferable to one pair.

any fans of 4 pair of speakers ? anyone set up 4 pair of speakers ?

i agree 100 percent with tvad, namely, to try to create some semblance of reality, consistent with your budget, room and cleverness.

realistic timbre has yet to be attained in any stereo system. isn't truth in timbre the essence of music ? isn't the sound of an instrument more important than where it comes from ?

evn if if i have frequency perception loss above 12khz, i can still recognize a tenor sax. i want a tenor not to sound like an alto. one channel is sufficient for that purpose.

multichannel concerns spatiality. what does that have to do with music which is pitch, timbre and harmonics.

mono is sufficient to reproduce timbre accurately. why is one so concerned about spatial cues. has the problem of accuracy of timbre been solved ? i think not.

a recording is an inexact reproduction of reality. recording quality varies. why strive for a significant discrepancy from reality ? in fact there is no way to know what is embbeded on a recording. the content is unknown. therefore, how can you strive to reproduce that which is unknown ?

our hobby is essentially one of entertainment. thus, there is no definitive criterion for achieving the "optimum" level of entertainment. it is a purely subjective phenomenon.

i accept the concept of accuracy. it is an ideal which cannot be attained, as a stereo system is composed of components which are imperfect.

those who believe that "input=output" is the sole purpose of a stereo system are entitled to that opinion. unfortunately, there will never be an accurate system and it is difficult , if not impossible to quantify the inaccuracy of a stereop system, as the concept of accuracy is mult-dimensional.

i think that that trying to configure a multi channel stereo systemis just a manifestation of satisfying the taste of the listener, as tvad has stated. i don't consider any other significance to this endeavor.

the number of channels is less important than what is fed into them. multi channel does not solve the problem of mediocre components and problem recordings.

placing such emphasis upon multi channel is misplaced. the concern should be on recordings, preamps, amps, cable and speakers.

i dare say, a master analog tape pleyd through a $300 personal stereo (i have one) will sound better than any multi channel stereo that uses a cd as its source.

i believe that listening to a symphony orchestra is a mon mode experience rather than a multi-channel experience.

listening to small ensemble music is also in mono mode.

in many cases the music is perceived as being in front of you not behind you. the enhanced spatial effects from more than two channels may be pleasant but it probably does not represent most live music where instruments are unamplified.