2. speakers
  3. 1177210462

MultiChannel too complicated for most...

I've been on the gon for a little while now, posting and enjoying all the spectacular virtual systems. There is one thing I've noticed though. It's that many seem to associate the terms 2 channel and simple, especially when heading and detailing their virtual systems. I don't see it too often in threads, but every now and again it'll show up their as well.

Me being the multichannel guy I am, this small and most times overlooked detail seemed to jump out at me. Its been a passing thought for a while, but seems to be a somewhat valid question.

Now...before I go any further, this is not in insight a riot and bombard the moderators with request to have this thread pulled because it "potentially offends" 2 channel lovers. This is not that kind of posting, but just posing a question that has crossed my mind more times that one.

Do 2channel only audiophiles shun multichannel (discrete or DSP based) because they find it too complicated?

If the concept of thinking in 360 degrees (Multichannel) were simplified, for a lack of better terms, would multichannel be more accepted?
cdwallace

Showing 1 response by avguygeorge

avguygeorge
2,300 posts
 
I guess we all have our preferences;me, I am a 2ch. first, kind of guy. I do HT,but on a lesser level. I have a very high quality 2 ch.setup. For movies and such I use a receiver;that should tell everything.---10 years ago when multi ch.audio first came out; I just hated the mixes. I sold my multi ch. discs and have never gone back.
The only part that was complicated was spending the bucks to properly match speakers and amps---you know;the same stuff all around.---I was ok at installing the cables. I know where they go on the receiver. I have a Sony sacd/dvd player. It does 2ch. or multi ch. sacd and have never played a sacd on it.I also have a 2ch sacd player;on that I play sacds.
More to discover