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

Thanks for the spell check. I'll try to be a little more careful next time.

Glad to see your horizons have been broadened. Enjoy your days in MC bliss.

Cinematic_Systems - You bring up an interesting point that I really didn't think of when I started the thread.

OK EVERYONE, let mix things up then. 14k is the budget for 2channel, 6K for MC. You rooms are equal; you have enough space to properly setup a 2channel or MC system. This is your realistic budget, you can't spend a dime more.

Well Neo, which will it be? The blue pill or the red pill?

Philnyc - I have to disagree with you on one minor detail. IMHO, Mediocre MC systems have now become just as good as "High Quality" 2-channels systems. High end MC systems are on the same playing field as High end 2-channel, when kept within the equal budget limitations. Of course, if you exceed the budget of even $14k, or a $30k high end budget for that matter, I'm more than sure you could assemble a system that would rival a MC system within the same budget perameters. I'm beginning to realise that there are many recordings, especially those of a grand scale, that are recorded originally in MC. This is where the most if not all of your delays and room/location ambience comes from. However, most mixes are done in 2-channel. It's restructured to fit in 2 channels, but that doesn't mean it was originally ment or intended to be there. Your not gonna find a recording done with only 2 mics, one on the left and one on the right. But instead of hearing it in it's proper perspective, it's held to the front soundstage. More and more mixes are done in MC now. They may not be released in MC, but they are mixed.

I'm starting to see that most audiophiles think rear channals are only intended for movie effects. IMHO, this is quite the contrary. So much information is compressed to the front soundstage in 2 channel. Imagine, for a moment if you will, you have orchestra seating at the Myerhoph Symphany or take someones experience of Jimi Hendrix at '69 Woodstock, and compressing it to 2 speakers in front of you. I mentioned that some scenario to a audiophile friend of mine...his response was "That's (2-channel) was the way it's supposed to be." Try telling that to someone who was there to see Hendrix live!!! It's tolerable if your in an auditorium or in a stadium, but if your in you 17x25ft living room, how can it accurate reproduce your experience with speakers? It can't compare. But if you can take all the benifits of 2 channel...accuracy, imaging, etc., and reproduce that live feel??!! No, your not back at the original performance, but certainly won't get there with 2 channel either.

By no means am I a 2 channel basher or anti-audiophile belief system, but so many audiophiles have been closed minded to MC...by choice. There are great times to be had in MC, but we're too scared to break the mold. Not because our ears may tell us something different, but because "I won't have Conrad Johnson's or Wilson's in my system" or "I won't be able to say I have an all tube system."

If that's how you choose to listen to music, then by all means enjoy. There's just more to the material than you think. Once MC sound reproduction becomes produced, setup, configured, and marketed more effectively, 2 channel may become a thing of the past. The average consumer just hasn't experienced MC the way it was originally intended...with the same effort and energy as 2 channel.

Care to indulge us with some of your memorable systems and experiences?

Tell us about you own personal system?

Eldarado - You have a valid point. The music is coming from in front of you, and possibly from the sides...depending on how close you're sitting to the source. But does your listening room sound like a concert hall? Can your listening room replicate...60% of the locations where your music was recorded? If so, whats the secret. I would love for my 12x15 living room to sound like the concert auditorium my classical pieces were recorded in.

Maybe I'm a little misguided. I've had the priviledge to sit in on a recording session or two. IME, Mics are specifically set up in the farthest portion of the room to record the ambience of the room when the instruments are played, as well as the instruments played in the room in order to achieve the intended echo attack and delay. The recording location is meticulously picked out for the purpose, among others, of ambience. If the entire recording staff...as well as the production staff...intentionally had these mics setup in their specific locations...BEHIND the would-be listening position, they why do I wanna ONLY listen to them in front of me on my stereo? If the purpose is to replicate the ambiance of an unusually large room, why do I wanna replace that with the sound of my 12x15 living room walls? Thats not what was intended, why do I wanna change it? If that were the case, it's pointless to record at a live venue in or in a studio any large than your musicians can fit in.

Please excuse the enthusiasm, but I know what my ears heard. Does anyone else hear what I'm hearing? I do need insight on this, because obviously, I'm a little lost...or am I?

Jimmy2615 - You bring up excellent points about MC. MC does require a little more intuative preparation than 2 channel and, yes MC is no good without a solid 2-channel starting point. But how many races have you see where the runner starts from the beginning and stands still shortly there after. Thats like a Nascar driver completing 10 laps and going home.

I am a true advicate of 2 channel. I've heard some of the best of what 2 channel has to offer. But if there is more to offer, then why are so many affraid to take consider that option. A thick juicy steak is great, but its even better when its cooked the way I want it. If you like your steak rare, then great! Thats how you like it, rare! You like it medium well, fine medium well it is. But should someone settle for rare when you can have it the way you want it. Then again, how do you know what you like unless you've tried it all.

I'm not saying that everyone should listen only to 2 channel or only to MC. I'm saying take the time to try correct MC and then make a decision. I've notive just by this thread that those who have listened to MC, have some likes and dislikes. But those who have never tried it are the ones that are completely dead-set against it. I'm almost positive that those are the ones who say "2-channel and nothing else. Thats the way its supposed to be." They probably didn't come to that conclusion on there own. There just repeating what some else said or what they read in Stereophile or Absolute Sound.

Also, IME I've heard excellent sounding MC systems in average size rooms, ie 15x21 and so on. Its far from the extreme as you might think.

A general question to the audiophile crowd. If I were to present a properly setup and configured MC system, in the same size as your current listening room, for half the price of your current system, and the only catch is for your to maintan an open mind about what your ears are really telling you, how many people would take the time to listen? Or has high end audio closed its doors only to what Dave Wilson says?

* As a side note, I have nothing against either Dave Wilson or the mentioned magazines and happen to consistantly read both in a monthly basis.

Philnyc...your even more an enthusiest than I imagined. Thanks for explaining your thoughts even though your really didn't have to. Please excuss the spontanious venting, but it really irks me to here "MC is not for audiophiles" or MC is a joke when most audiophiles really haven't heard what MC is supposed to sound like.

Keeping all things equal I can understand how you may have come to your conclusion. IME I recently heard a $6k MC system that competed with a $14K 2-channel system that a local audioshop is selling. I won't name any names, but they're household named companies amongst audiophiles. You'd be supprised if you had the chance to audition. And heres the kicker...get ready to call me crazy and a novice! The $6k system....based around Cambridge Audio gear. No, it ain't high end, but it was rather convincingly close. I'm sure there are other components that would run circles around the Cambridge. But hey, this is what was considered to be the bottom of the totem pole. The systems just get better from there.

I'm presently making arrangements to here the upgraded versions of the system. When I give them a listen, I'll definately fill you in.

Cinematic_systems...I don't think Strabo REALLY wants that. It will complete destroy the audiophile belief system. IMO, I think Strabo gave MC a shot, but with little to no extra guidence and lack of exposure to its true potential, Strabo, like so many others, got frustrated and conseeded to 2 channel. If you show him how its done, what will his other audiophile buddies think? He may even be banned from audiogon! Dave Wilson may even disown him! :0

Strabo...I'm just yankin' your chain. But I will say this. It seems as if Cinematic_systems is willing to go the xtra mile and offer further assistance. Are you willing to give it a shot? Not completely give up 2-channel, but give MC another shot and do it the right way? Well Strabo...will it be the blue pill or the red one?

**Before I get threatning notes, I have nothing against Dave Wilson. Lighten up! Its what some call a joke :)

Perkadin...thats just one of the many benifits audiophiles are missing with MC. I personally prefer the center channel on a blended in with the fronts. But thats the option that I can choose. Its flexible to my taste. With 2 channel, your just stuck. What you see is what you get, unless your willing to part with another $5k. Glad to see you've come back to light.

Any other converts among us?

IYO - In your opinion. Sorry for the mixup

Surfgod...Your guess is correct. I have never heard 2 or 4 track pre-recorded factory reel to reel tapes with musuic. I'm not sure if many people have heard such a thing. I'm sure that you could probably count on your hands and toes as to how many people still have cassette players, let along reel to reel players. I was born pre-1975. Can't say I've had the experience. Actually, the recording sessions I've been involved with didn't use reel to reel either. They've used 24 track digital Hard drives or ADAT type tapes. This is for pre and post production.

I would assume however, 2 or 4 track reel to reel doesn't compare to CD. Nevertheless, how would this be better than multichannel? Superior quality? Ambience? Does it capture the recording accurately for future reproduction? I would believe not!! But hey, I never heard 2 or 4 track so what do I know???!

Wait a minute surgod...but wouldn't 4-track be multichannel? Wouldn't anything more than 2 tracks be considered multichannel for that matter? Sooo...I'm a little lost here. Care to explain?

Let me guess, you've been an audiophile since you've heard your first 4 track reel to reel recording?

Pardon the snideness, but I can't get the point.

Let me chime in again and offer a formal appology to Surgod and all others I may have offended. It's not my charactor to be so "in your face" and rude. It's truely not my intention. Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining, though!!! But I never want to be rude.

My goal is to figure out who knows what they're talking about and who doesn't. Apparently, I've started weeding out the one's who don't. I haven't seen a response from Surgod or anyone else since 5/25/06.

Back to the original purpose of the thread. You've got 6k to spend on a MC system and/or 14k on a 2channel system. Which one do you pick and why?

As a side note, it's benificial for everyone, espceially the newcomers to the hobby, if you post answers based on 1st hand experience! If you haven't heard a properly setup MC system, and can come to conclusion based on your experience and preference, please don't respond. It doesn't take much to resite what you see in a magazine or have heard from a friend who's friend's cousin told you something he read.

PS - Am I in the twilight zone or are more of the 1950 era recordings being remastered in thier original 3 channel and quadrophonic setups?

213cobra - Thanks for the response. It's funny you say that a $10k MC system is "nothin'". Even funnier that you say a 10K 2channel system is "dramatically goes up in quality." Care to elaberate?

What about the performance of the systems. No, the names of the manufactors don't even compare!!! I will say you are 200% correct. But what about the performance of the system? I've notice the majority of "audiophiles" do a lot of name dropping, which is "nothin'". Who cares about what brand name you have, isn't it supposed to be about performance anyway?

And your right...few do have the know how to bring the best out of MC mixes. What are you implying by this? If more engineers had a clue as how to use the format better....? What are you not saying by this comment?

Phil, hears the deal. I would believe everything you said about how 2 channel is far superior to MC....if my ears didn't tell me diffferently. It's wasn't novilty or special effects I was listening to. I EXPERIENCED the musical performance! To be honest with you, I think your partially ashamed to admit it, but your more "MC" than 2 channel anyway!!! The fact that you think with a larger budget, MC can even compare to what some call "the holy grail of music", tells me your borderline MC. Phil...there is still hope! There are programs out there tailored especially for you too. :)

No doubt there are systems that are spectacular when it comes to music reproduction. But lets face it, the majority cost more than 10K. I'm saying, IME, I've listened to a properly setup MC system that will smoke a lot of the 10K "budget systems" , and it costs around 6K. And thats just the entry level system.

You right, it doesn't matter how many speaker you can cram into a system. Its about maximizing performance with the one's you have. I'm saying, IME, I've heard a systems that will more convincing and/or encouraging than you think, and it won't cast 10K or be a 20.2 system.

Jack_Dotson...get ready to call me crazy. You haven't heard a proper MC setup until you can take your 2channel CD's, play them over the MC system, and it sounds mind-numbingly better in MC then in stereo. I can say that because I've heard it for myself. Your MC system can be setup to smoke just about any 2 channel system...while playing stereo CD's. And guess what...It may be less expensive than you current 2 channel system.

The only reason it was a waste of time and money is because whoever you went to for product and advice had no clue as to what they were doing!!! But all is not lost! You can get a MC system for both HT and Music. Interested? Let me know!!

OK...you can call me crazy now!!! :)

Well Phil...What is the intended purpose of the 20.2 system? Is it MC music or commerical cinema theaters? If its theaters, your mixing apples with watermelons. In fact Tomilson Holman is a professor at USC...of Film Sound at the USC School of Cinema-Television. Where does this compare with MC music? Your right, it doesn't!

By the way, what was your take on the 20.2 system when you heard it? Have you heard the 20.2 system, for that matter? How was your experience? If you experience was a movie, then no need to answer, seeing we're attempting to stay on the subject!

Furthermore, you, as so many, have the mindset that MC is only for home theater!! You wrong again! Until you've experience what I've experienced, how can you call me a liar? But see thats the thing, I won't dare call you a liar because you've never heard it CORRECTLY with your own ears. When you do, you'll realize you've been lying...to yourself!!

MC is no more complex than stereo...if you know what your doing. If you don't then I can see how you came to the conclusion that it was far more complex.

That's all I'm hearing from so-called audio experts. MC is about movies! They've been crying that same sad tune, loud and wrong, for so many years! If you take movies out of the equation, and focus strictly on the music, take the time to listen, you'll see I know what I'm talking about.

Maybe its best we agree to disagree, although I am having a ball debating the issue. Until you've heard what I'm talking about, you'll never get it. By no means am I giving up on the fight, though. Especially with those who don't have a clue as to what I'm talking about. Many don't have a clue what they're talking about either!!

PS - Have you ever been misdiagnosed by a doctor before? They spend just as many years learning the craft with years in school, and guess what? They still can get it wrong!

Thanks for the quick response. Where can I find more information on this 20.2 MC music system?

Thanks for the breakdown, D_Edwards.

"I haven't called you a liar at any time."

Phil you are correct. You haven't called me a liar, you just said my opinion and belief is a lie. But you didn't call ME a liar, yes!

"Economically, MC is about movies, as movies are the hook the entire industry's marketing machine is using to entice people into MC. The music side of it is a sideshow economically, however."

Save the hogwash about economics. It's not about marketing or the industry fooling consumers. It's about the music, remember.

"YOU posed the question. Don't protest that you don't like the answer!"

Your right, I did pose the question...and I'm not protesting the answer. Your opinion is your opinion. I'm protesting the content of your answer, because its just plain misguided...dare I say wrong.

"I have heard music MC correctly. It is not an advance in fidelity, IMO. I've probably heard more diverse and correct music MC installations than 99.99% of people who have heard MC of any type."

I've heard the 00.01% system you haven't. You'd be shock how it sounds.

"It's not a scheme for convincing fidelity, in my view, but I do understand why some people are seduced by it and enjoy it."

Everyone hasn't been seduced! We've sat down in the listening chair and come to our own conclusion that MC picks up where 2 channel leaves off. They've experienced how music can be...outside of the 2 channel box.

"I can assure you, I have heard what you're talking about, and my reaction to it is it's worse in every elemental way for music fidelity, than 2 carefully chosen and configured channels. Especially when you stipulate level cost."

Phil...I'm sorry but this statement tells me that you like so many others still don't know what I'm talking about. If however many systems left such a bad taste in your mouth toward MC, then you don't have any idea what I'm talking about!

"That doesn't mean I won't continue to be curious and listen for some future iteration of MC when someone gets it right. Today is just not that day."

This statement proves that there is still hope for you and MC music. Your still willing to take the time to listen and even learn something.

Phil...somebody got it right!!! And I heard it for myself about a month ago! Your today came a month ago.

Did you have a chance to hear the system at any stage in progress?

Well Phil...your in luck. My contact is still good. You owe it to yourself to reach out to him. I'm sure he can even help with your 2 channel system as well.

http://www.theavarchitect.com/contactus.html

Oh before I forget...how was the 20.2 experience?

Ok Phil...we're getting somewhere. Enlighten me...how would you charactorize "fidelity"? Can you pinpoit where MC loses it?

I think it would help me and others out if we can somehow "think how you would think".

Ecclectique..."wake up and smell the coffee"...Track #2 from George Duke's album entitled "Cool". Great album; I would highly recommend it. IT SOUNDS SPECTACULAR IN MC DOLBY PROLOGIC II. :0

Sorry, it slipped!

Phil...it sounds as if the 20.2 experience had everything IYO except fidelity. Is this a true statement?

If you current system was implimented into a 20.2 system, how would it be. I was assure your system has everything your looking for, including the correct amount of fidelity? Would that system be holistic and up to par? Or are you a triod kind of guy and wouldn't dare expand the hozisons of you system beyond 2 channel.

I guess what I'm getting at is if you system, having all the things MC doesn't and more, where structured in a MC setup, would it still be as good or better. It would be safe to assume that such superior quality multiplied would do nothing but produce more superior, holistic, quality music! My magic chipmunk would love to know!

Wouldn't you speaker need to be as accurate as possible in order to reproduce the tone...of the recording? Or is it all about the over all tone of the system? We can go back and forth about the format, but I haven't heard you mention anything about the tone of the recording. If the system has its own tone, which dominates the tone of the recording, then where do I hear what the recording is supposed to sound-like? Isn't this the key to fidelity and tone? Or is it a matter of matching components to counterbalance another? You can add the multiple drivers and achieve the intended tone...of the recording...as long as the speakers are accurate. Thats like saying 2+2 doesn't equal 4 unless you use a simple calculator. It doesn't matter which calculator you use, if its programmed wrong, you outcome will not be accurate. But if the scientific or basic calculator is programmed correctly, then the outcome will be accurate.

Would you agree Phil?

But this is what I don't get. Accuracy plus accuracy equals accuracy. Accurate speakers plus matching accurate speaker...equals output less than accurate???? Please explain further, if you will.

Then if no two speakers are exactly alike, just close, when why don't you listen in mono?

No Phil... I really think you missing the logic behind that statement. If two speakers are measured and found to both be accurate...flat frequency response, among other things.. then where is the room for error? No, both are not 100% identical, but the measurements tell the story. If they measure equal, where is the room for error? If the error was that great, they why would you match those two speakers together anyway? It just doesn't make logical sense.

No disrespect, but I guess I'll never get what your saying. It's so insignificant that it's really not worth the time and energy. Maybe after some years of refinement I'll get a glimps of what your saying. But for now, my magic chipmunk is making more sense about audio than you are.

What your arguing is neither hear nor there, because your talking in a complete circle. Stick to your pre-1920 SET technology and out of phase single driver speakers..thats your right! For me, I'll continue to experience my music with current techonolgy...in MC. This system has something your is missing, good sounding music the way the artist intended.

There's plenty of room on the wagon, just don't bring you bottle this time!

And again Phil...Its not the answer, its the content behing it.

"The static measurements of drivers do not capture their actual behavior in dynamic use, and the ear can hear the difference."
"Massing many "matched" drivers has its appeal but it nevertheless draws attention to what is different among them, however small."

These statement pretty much means that every speaker, be it Wilson to Def Tech or DIY, draw attention to its imperfections because it uses multiple drivers. And of course you system doesn't because it uses a single "full" range driver. In other words, yours is better? I beg to differ, and so does every other manufactor and DIYer around!!

Also, no matter how much you measure a speaker, even during "dynamic use", if the output response measures even within +-1db, it still has no fidelity and imperfections are audible once you add more than one driver?

"I don't have circa 1920 SET amps."

The technology hasn't advanced since the 20's, 50's the absolute latest. It's just in a modern housing. So, let me rephrase, its outdated!

"Obviously you don't know about my system. When you do, the conversation can improve."

Oh, but Phil, I have heard what your type of system sounds like. No I haven't heard your exact system obviously, thank God. I will say the conversation has progressed far more than the techology for your system has.

"I have no idea what your "magic chipmunk" represents but audio sense isn't among its assets. "

But even without audio sense, my magic chipmunk knows you don't know what your talking about and your talking in a complete circle.

"until you hear what I'm describing" - I can't because it ain't there!!

It's hopeless!! One minute your bashing MC, the next you even say 2ch "has its problems" with being holistic and having fidelity. Oh, I get it!! Unless someone has your exact system, they'll never have tonal fidelity or be holistic. It's just like my magic chipmunk...all in your head!!!

Have you ever had your holistic system with true tonal fidelity measured? I'm sure you wanna be able to back up all these outlandish aligations, don't you? Of course you didn't measure your system. Measurements mean nothing anyway, right? People just waste money and time to measure speakers for nothing?

Let's get back to the question at hand. 6k on a MC system, 10k on a 2ch, which one? And please keep the meaningless babble to a minimum!

Phil, you've clearly stated where you stood! Respect it....and laugh, all at the same time, I must! Agree..no comprehend...not a chance! Lets open things back up the less holistic system owners.

Phil... thanks for your opinion. You've thoroughly explained you methodology behind your set. No need to explain any further! Supprisingly, my magic chipmunk understand completely where your coming from and has designed a system based on your opinions. Unfortunately, just like what you claim to be hearing from your "holistic" system, my magic chipmunk just doesn't exist!

Maybe in another 50 years, techonology would have reverted back to outdated techonolgy and I'll get it then.

If its OK with everyone, please refer back to the question I posted yesterday. It would be interesting to hear everyones views.

Thanks

Phil...the holistic benifit has always been in my previous 2ch and current MC system. It's even in the numerous high and ultra high end systems I've heard at local and regional audioshops. I'm saying the holistic benifit is on a much grander scale than with 2ch. Not with movies but with music. You're more than correct, I'm having a ball with MC. The journey didn't take long either. I've been involed with mid and hifi for about 3 years now. MC is my reference, not 2 ch.

"I'm saying the holistic benifit is on a much grander scale than with 2ch."

Correction - on a grander scale...with MC, than 2ch.

"When you tire of chasing your tail with MC, as you no doubt will, you will return to technology appropriate to the task."

Phil you assume so much, how do you know you're not chasing your tail right now? It took you 53 years to find the right speakers? Why haven't you checked out speakers like Tannoy and Cabasse, all of which adhere to your ideals? Tannoy has made a speaker like yours for decades! Why not a Manger Zerobox 109 which can be setup to play from 200hz to 40khz with no crossover? I would think you might have explored some of these options. But you were going to buy a Sonus Faber?

"No, Cdw, you're missing my point. Taking one accurate driver and adding another is revealing the error between them. Then do it again, and again, and again, and you begin to have slightly distinct voices. Clarity and tone are the casualties. There are no two exactly matched drivers. This is just one of the many problems with line-source loudspeakers, even in 2C."

So you prove this point to us all by purchasing speakers that has no less than 7 drivers on them each? Ok, so this aspect may not be SO important after all. And competent surround processors are quite capable of perfectly aligning the speakers, that's why there are some processors you shouldn't buy. I believe You waaaaay over state your abilities to hear differences between two drivers and overlook the transitions a single driver goes through making its own sound. A full range cone driver will likely have greater variation in tone than three seperate elements.

some Single cone problems;
1. Uneven frequency response= less Fidelity
2. The transition from 4pi to 2pi, makes the driver sound as different as two drivers and destroys tone
3. Modulation of high frequencies due to low frequency content. destroys tone and fidelity

These are just a few of the reasons most speaker designers put two to three drivers in their systems anyway. If one driver is going to sound different across its frequency band why not use two , each optimized for its bandwidth. They call it the lesser of two evils I think. This ability to hear the lack of holistic sound in multi-driver systems is all in your head as you have proven by your actions.

"Nothing on the market sounds like a Zu speaker. Honestly. Whether you like them or not, Zu speakers are their own thing."

Yes I agree. That Includes what's on the recording.

"There'd be software processing attempting to ham-handedly simulate much more complex wave behavior than the processor and speaker array would be up to."

I'm sure Jim Fosgate and Bob Stuart disagree and You have little or no idea how modern surround works and the current complexity of processing and accuracy of the algorithms. Two channel directly interferes with natural wave propagation, it is an unfortunate tone destroying side effect. That is why you still use triodes and if not those an autoformer McIntosh which dull the leading edge that is so harsh on a simple two channel system. Your whole system right down to your Denon cartridge addresses and diffuses and dulls the inherent high frequency issues in two channel. Unwittingly you have showed your hand, by doing everything you can to diffuse and soften the highs of your system. As the sources and electronics continue to improve, using only two speakers becomes the obvious liability. One day you will figure that out. In the end Phil you don't have to worry about me having the tone and fidelity in my system. You are too inconsistent to be the arbitor of tone and fidelity and if you took a second to refresh yourself you would see how incorrect these following statements sound to someone like me when we consider all that you have said and further more your actions;

"Effects, breakdown analysis, picayune critique of details. I find fewer and fewer people listening holistically or even able to comprehend what I mean by that."

(That's because you don't define it very well, because you say one thing and do another.)

"Yes, Cdw, every speaker that uses massed drivers has the same problem I outlined. It only gets worse with many speakers, and is containable with just two." "Yes, my speaker is better for a lot of reasons," "And yes, sometime you will hear what I'm talking about -- that good drivers massed draw attention to what is not matched." (and buy those speakers anyway :) "No, I haven't yet found you can add multiple drivers and achieve intended tone if the drivers are accurate. No two drivers are fully matched. Just close. Having more just makes the inconsistencies more audible and disruptive to fidelity." (so I should buy a speaker with 7 drivers each?) Magic Chipmunk No. 7!

"But that will sometime change and you'll begin paying attention to what your ears already know, that your brain has yet to assimilate. Patience." (The brain knows we hear in a primarily 360 degrees field, what more is there to know?)

"How's that done? With inventive combinations of resistors, capacitors, chokes, inductors"
(The rest of us call that an equalizer, I can't believe you have an equalizer built into your 1920 amplifiers, that's so cool! is it 5 band or 3 band?) .....doesn't that hurt "tone"?

"I don't have circa 1920 SET amps. And my speakers are phase-coherent. (proof please) I bet we can find that circuit in an old navy manual. "Monaural can have terrific tone", ( but a center channel in a system can't)

"heck let's give the MC guy 50% more! -- and 2C wins on fidelity, tone, less "unreality."" (sounds like wager time!)

"Well-made stereo works with human spatial perception in a way mono nearly completely lacks." (and 2ch mostly lacks)

Well Phil we are at an impasse, but you need to get your story straight. Because you tell me one thing and then we have to make an exception for your equipment and your choices. You don't follow what you say is true. So you discredit yourself, which is why I am confused at times.

Kal...glad everyone doesn't buy into Phil's eroneous theories.

Phil, You just have all the answers, :) I love it. "The strength of Sonus Faber is that the line represents "voiced" loudspeakers." Yeah you could call it "voiced" if you like, but I have to disagree with the desirability of the net effect of "voiced"....voiced hurts Fidelity. The Cremona's violate atleast three of your speaker "ideals" which others I listed do not. "None of the above match Zu for essential fidelity." What is Fidelity to you, certainly not the accepted definition. The Manger I KNOW beats the Zu in Fidelity, it may be the most advanced driver in the world. Zu may still sound better but that is not Fidelity necessarily. "The Cremona and above are among the best speakers using crossovers in terms of being able to represent music holistically. Zu is better still, for reasons already outlined."

I can think of a half dozen speakers that out shine the Cremona's in the "holistic" department. Certainly all of your experience has left you confused with too many options. Fact is anyone would have purchased the Manger until you heard the Zu, but you didn't you were going to buy a Sonus faber and of course this is the inconsistency I speak of. Flip Flop, and then you found the Zu. Your audio life was saved by two full range drivers in chorus. COMPLETELY against your ideals. Shows how much you learned in all your years, you're still trial and error.

"Uneven FRD frequency response? True in lesser FRD systems. Not true for the Zu FRD. Again, when you audition it, then you can comment from an informed perspective." I've seen the measurements in two magazines at best its +/- 4 dB from 200hz to 10khz, that is hardly what I would call ideal. You can't "hear" the actual frequency response Phil. Typical audiophile thinks he can hear stuff he can't Everybody I know has an issue with the bass, I could careless, what bothers me is the incredibly ragged off axis response and dips in critical frequency ranges. The fact the driver actually appears to have an impedance hump where it shouldn't will adversely effect phase and the "tone". This is the Druid, with just one driver.

"They have very fast rise time, are not obscuring of detail in the least."

Really, well what is it and what are THEY.....hide and seek with you all the time. As for their bandwidth, that is meaningless in my point about how you've tried to dull the highs in your system. I like how everything in your system is so perfect but what I like better is you don't know that you're dulling your highs. McIntosh amplifiers are adjusted and a bit rounded, just look at their square wave sometime. Tsk, Tsk, you should know better that too argue what you "think" you hear with someone who want facts. Its really intellectually dishonest of you to TELL me what you hear is the truth. I simply cannot share these kinds of FACTS? with you. So you're going have to do better than pronouns and supposition if we're going to elevate this conversation to a productive level. "Zu's solution is an unusually large advance", This is strictly in your (ever decreasingly credible) opinion! Because I don't see it. because the only FACTS on this speaker that I have seen, barely makes them goode. I see a hot rodded eminence driver with some clever tuning to help with baffle step compensation and other than that it appears to behave like almost every other 10" midrange one can buy. Yeah I still have to hear it but if we deal with facts not opinion, I'm going to need a great deal more information from you to support your claims. Right now those two magazines are the arbitor of my opinion because they both show similar results on your "advanced" driver. BTW this is not a disparagement of ZU, this is a disparagement of what you say the facts are and what the facts really are and your consistent misuse of the word Fidelity

"Definitions DON'T have is the even worse problem of massed crossovers."

Oh yeah, but I wonder if you know what happens when two speakers cover the same frequency spaced as they are? Do you know? They kind of crossover.

"But Definitions have greater resolution, more linear accuracy, can scale more extensively, and throw a wider usable soundstage." I love when people make my point for me; How do you think the Definitions have greater resolution and "throw" a wider soundstage? Personally I think you're just making this up from a technical standpoint, well actually I don't. I'm sure you "hear" it this way but you would would be very upset to find that the reason you like the fuzzier presentation is because the two drivers combine to actually diffuse the high frequencies. You really should do more real research because unwittingly you just made my argument that 2 speakers (ie the Zu Druid) is not as good as 4 speakers (Zu Definition). So you do prefer multichannel better. All you have to do now is spread all those speaker out a little. :) And I'm not being cute, check it out before you come back with something smug based on your complete misunderstanding of what's happening.

Man Phil, you don't know yourself very well. "Top to bottom, everything I've outlined is present in my system configuration. Highly-refined wideband and simple circuits, wide-response, fast, articulate sources, and speakers built around a uniquely wide-range, neutral FRD that uses a minimum number of drivers to achieve their bandwidth, response, resolution and natural tone." Phil, you're like Bill Clinton, minimum? response? fast? I think you're trying to redefine these terms. The whole Denon Cartridge thing, still sticks, and once again you simply do not know what really matters in creating the "tone" of a system. "I've owned Bob Stuart's speakers in the past. He usually has at least one really good speaker at a price" This conversation is not about his speakers Equating his speakers with the entirety of his work is typical of your knowledge base, but I'm surprised you had to go there at all.

"I have multiple pairs of tube amps. One pair is very wideband, flat 5Hz - 115kHz, better than many solid state and certainly MC amps. They have very fast rise time, are not obscuring of detail in the least."

So whats the spectral content of those amplifiers? you don't even know, which is why you make a completey irrelevant statement about MC amplifiers. I could have SET MC amplifiers could I not? Do I have to use MC amps in a MC system? No I do not. BTW which tube amp is 5hz-115khz? into a resistive load, remember static amplifier performance does not equal dynamic amplifier performance! "I recall what I "knew" when I was 3 years into hifi. Time will change your perspective. You can be sure of it."
Yes it will, but because I listen to people with greater experience than myself, that actually SHOW me REAL information and let me derive my own opinion. I am already better off than you. I am not in a world of disolusion. Because to simply base all my knowledge on marketing text and hearing sessions would keep me spinning. And like you I will never know what I'm looking for.

In Closing

One thing I do know about your system is you prefer the multi-channel version of your speakers over the two channel one....let that be a lesson to you.


There's your sign. ;)

Sure Phil...whatever your say!

UUUUUHHHmmm.............NO! Try again! Keep "dawning" and when all else fails...refer to you mystical chipmunk #7!

This has been interesting,

A SET guy who doesn't understand the limitations of his amplifiers, and accuses someone else of "dogma"...LOL!!!Black kettle calling someone something...right?

So I'm curious, Phil, can you get me any info like I see in Stereophile on your amplifiers? Talk, talk doesn't help. What do you think the chances are that they actually put out their rated power? 50%?

http://www.stereophile.com/amplificationreviews/740/index11.html
http://www.stereophile.com/amplificationreviews/351/index6.html

So which one looks like yours? If you like distortion you got the right amplifiers! Bandwidth is still limited on your amplifiers but not as important as some other items we see in the Stereophile battery of measurements.

"So...you don't like Sonus Faber huh? Perhaps you never heard them with the right amp."

Do they make an amp to fix all that is broken? Admittedly the Cremona is a more complete design than the pathetic Amati. But when I can get better audio performance from $3000 speakers what is the point? It be nice to hear someone speak on a Sonus speaker that doesn't sound like
they have a swollen tongue.

http://www.stereophile.com/floorloudspeakers/304sonus/index3.html
http://www.stereophile.com/floorloudspeakers/506sf/index3.html

"Whether you think a Manger is a fully-realized speaker is up to you. It wasn't good enough for me."

I'm quite certain you didn't hear it with the correct amplifier.

"Go test an MC1201."

They did for us!!....and you're hearing seems to be failing you. I don't blame you though 'cause when you own a real good surround system with peerless fidelity and tone like myself and others, you simply can hear these details so much clearer. I think its the center channel that makes it so revealing. I know that looks like a solid square wave to a tube guy but it's not for the rest of us.

http://www.stereophile.com/solidpoweramps/428/index7.html

"My triode amps are Audion Golden Dream and Black Shadow, which only a brief search here would have revealed to you. Also ultrasonic, into a resistive load, dynamically"

Phil, this bandwidth you're hung on has nothing to do with my comments about the characteristic highs in your system. 34khz is hardly sky high bandwidth, you certainly may want to clean the leaves out of the intakes after every flight.

"Conclusively 2C, if you know what you're doing and spend the money appropriately. "

Not with the equipment you've been suggesting....there's nothing conclusive about it except a resounding defeat for legacy two channel system. I've done it many times.

So you really don't know the Denon DL103D -- D, as in elliptical stylus version, It's a full rich cartridge. I did not imply that it was defective or bad (or that any of your equipment is bad) but its slightly rich tendency is
simply adding to all the other fixed Eq you have applied to your system to take the edge off the highs. I couldn't have said it any better.

"Measurement is not reliable as a full-scope indicator of what you'll experience in the complex acoustic domain."

Kid yourself all you want, someone who measures makes strides to dissecting what's happening in the complex acoustic domain. Certainly better than sitting back and guessing wrong all the time. Don't you think?

"I have enough experience with and knowledge of the long sweep of audio history with respect to putting reproduced music in the home to know in that context that in 15 years, maybe 10, you will not be a MC user and you will
recall this minor exchange as anticipating your return to 2C for all the reasons I've listed."

Don't hold your breathe, he's already way ahead of you in knowledge and education. What's experience when you're just feeling around in the dark? I bought a map, I've got direction. Certainly a luxury you didn't have 3
years into the hobby.

"but they do indicate the direction of his notions of tonal fidelity."

You don't know squat about Bob Stuart's notions. Just fabricating stuff. Let me tell you companies like Sonus Faber and their advanced design and sound quality have more to do with the way his speakers sound than his
notions of Fidelity.

"It's very easy to get anchored in definitive criteria for determining fidelity if you're willing."

Well Phil you seem pretty definite on your version of fidelity, too bad it doesn't jive with actual definition. Even had that convincing no crossover rap flowing like a river. Alas, as I pointed out before, you betray yourself at every turn. You can have seven drivers or 2 drivers per speaker but a MC system is subverted by two drivers and those destructive crossovers. The litany of excuses does little to persuade. Your spinning the story and finding a new path to slip down does not go unnoticed. Your dismissal of facts/ measurements, not inspirational to ones confidence that you fully understand what you're saying.

Does any one else have any pleasent multichannel experiences?

Well...looks like I got some sterophile reading to do then. Thanks for the post Kal!!!

Phil...you've talking yourself in to a circle of a wurlwind for long enough. You've made...tried to make your point. Thanks for the effort, but I think its time to move on. There are more mystical chipmunks waiting in line to post. ;)

So Kal...when did you discover MC listening?

Phil,
As I mentioned it has been fun and I have been learning a great deal from you but I must inform you that much of what I say from a technical standpoint is being confirmed by someone with a great deal more experience than I. As you ramble on many times incorrectly, my guy points out where you are not being precise.

I've been cheating but what is interesting is his prediction of what you will say and do next. That is the part that shocked me the most. He knows your religion, he knows your dogma and he underestands and can predict your behaviour. Scary how accurate he has been. Right down to you not understanding what is important in what measurements determine what amplifier sounds like. I never said frequency response had much to do with the "sound" of an amplifier. The Cary's sound is more profoundly effected by other parameters. Something at three years I understand and have heard demonstrated to me. Your assessment of the McIntosh is incorrect it's square wave is slow in its rise time. And that does affect its sound along with some other slight issues. Am I saying that the McIntosh is a bad amplifier? absolutely not! I just brought that to your attention that it still exhibits characteristics that color its sound slightly versus other amplifiers in its class. This I have heard and it conforms with your management of the highs in your system. IE. Its a coloration you tend to like.


So you should get over the 15 to 1 experience difference and up your game a little. I understand that you're a superior audio being to me so I will accept my limitations in not being able to understand that what is ok for you, is not ok for me. And like I said I know you own all the best equipment there is to buy, so if I want fidelity I have to buy what you have.

To me this last post is just a veiled attempt to belittle me personally. There is nothing new in it same stuff different day, just a slightly more aggressive attack on me and my information. Well all you have proven is that were I have chosen to get my information from is clearly out of your league. You don't understand amplification and you love your speakers despite the fact they don't come up to your standards and philosophy. And lets not forget you're a superior audio being. At 25 years old, I have
Bat like hearing compared to you, so take your little esoteric pet complaints that you use to increase your self-importance and move along.

Its over I'm not convinced you know what I'm talking about. And your Zu's are a novelty item, just like the Sonus's. You should have kept your quads and built dipole subs for them. You'd been better off. Cause like your 7 channel Zu's the quads are multichannel too.

Would anyone else care to post about thier Multichannel experiences or has this thread officially be shut down by the powers that be?

The other "not so obvious" point this thread was to hopefully help those who have or are at least are willing to try multichannel, but have run into a few bad experiences. Believe it or not, everyone who claims to know or owns a HT/Music store, really doesn't know how to get it right. Not to say I am the end all guru of multichannel. Not by a long shot! But I, and many others like me have seen it demonstrated, thoroughly explianed, and have done it ourselves. We are here to help...if you want it.

Personally, I think many of the 2CH guys are scared. Scared of the fact that there is a chance that I among other may be right. That MC...done correctly, may completely baffle thier knowledge, won't listen to their ears, and will dismiss MC because they don't understand how it can pick up where 2CH leaves off. Thats why so many call it a gimmick, other than they couldn't do what MC has done without spending at least 3/4 of thier salary. No fish oils or $500 .5 meter cables here, people!

May be its the visually effects of glowing objects while listening. Maybe..just maybe...if I can think of a way to make my mystical chipmuck to give off a warm soothing glow. Wait...I think I'm onto something!

Phd -

Thanks for your post but you've accomplished nothing but proving one of many points I've made before. Audiophiles have somehow convinced themselves that Multichannel is a gimmick; only to keep from realizing they have needlessly spent far too much money on product that can't accomplish what a system half its price can do effortlessly. Beleive it or not, audiophiles..in thier infinite psuedo-wisdom...can be wrong too.

"Multichannel is for movies, nothing more, nothing less. I use a quality surround sound receiver for movies and it does a darn good job there but it sucks for music."

Clarify..if you will. Are you referring that YOUR quality MC receiver sucks for music. Sounds like user error to me. Care to explain how you have your system setup? If we tackle the basics then maybe we can help you out with your music problem. That is unless you've been an audiophile too long to learn something new!!

"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."

Tell that to people who listen in MONO! Thats like saying a Mercedes Gulwing coupe is superior to a '06 Mercedes Benz SL600. The two can't compare. The Gulwing was the flagship....in its day! This was due purely to technological and other limitations. It couldn't out-anything the Benz of today. But as time progressed and limitations were overcome, the Benz has transformed into the beauty it is today. But the 600 does just about everything the Gulwing did and then some...20x better. Same goes for 2ch v MC. 2CH was the flagship and has been for a long while now. But just as the Gulwing, it was superior in it's day. Many people still chase after the Gulwing for nestalgic purposes and the same goes for 2CH. When coupled with a SET amp, turntable and 2500+ vinyl albums, you have an audiophiles dream. But lets face it, its all nestalgic. MC does everything 2CH did...much better.

"Support your local two channel dealership, keep multichannel where it belongs, movies only."

Glad everyone doesn't have that mindset. We'd still be living in the 50's.

"Why not, multichannel requires more dollars invested & the majority of Americans are satisfied with mediocre sound."

Have you invested more than $6000 in the 2ch system? If so, then your 2ch investment was more then what a MC system requires. BTW, I thought you said your MC reciever does a darn good job?" You wouldn't be implying that YOU'RE satisfied with "mediocre sound", are you?

"I am not surprised since some local hifi dealers reserve more room for multichannel products then they do for two channel, trying to sell as many boxes as they can."

Isn't that what dealers do...sell prodocts...? Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that what forums like this are for? Helping those who have audio related problems, in the event they have any? Or are we so caught up in name dropping, speaker designer worshiping, and declaring how much and how long we've been an audiophile!!

--------General Statement----not for PHD only-------

"you are not an audiophile if your not a two channel guy, period."

This is the number one reason why I refuse to be an audiophile, even if I have ultra high end tube and 2ch equipment. Here's my take on some audiophiles. These particular audiophiles are the ones who never got picked for kickball, never was popular in school, always picked on, and have now emast so much knowledge and few have degree's to back it up, they have isolated themselves from everyone else.

Let me apologize to each of you, who ever you may be, for being picked and bullied as a child. It was wrong!!

Now that these parcticular audiophile have become adults, they've created this exclusive club, only for those of thier kind, to help releave the inferiority complex they've gotten when they were kids.

Let me further explain. That comment was NOT intended to offend for one particular person. Thats why I chose my words very carefully. It's NOT even my intention to offend audiophiles. If the shoe doesn't fit, don't try to cram it on your foot!!!! However...if for some reason you have taken offense to this, there is a high probability this "particular audiophile" I was refering to...is you. If that is the case, I apologize in advance. My intended purpose for the comment was not to offend, but to point out the ones who: 1) have or potentially have ruined it for people who may have thoughts about getting it the hobby, and 2) have made it difficult for everyone else to explain to others why this hobby is so great. This "particular audiophile" is the number one reason why I refuse to become one...even with a $20k 2ch SET/speaker system. To be perfectly honest, It ain't that serious!!!!!

Oh...before I forget, I've almost completed my glowing mystical chipmuck...for those who may be interest. However, it's only for 2CH SET systems. ;)

Dave...you've truly given me a reality check! Some people get it and some don't. Sad to say, but you may be right...I am and audiophile. Just not THAT kind of audiophile. It gets frustrating to hear such mumbo come from people who have many more years in the hobby than I. Then when I make my case, I'm told I don't know what I'm talking about because I have only 3 years under my belt.

You're right though!! I should revert my passion in another direction.

I already know the answer but I can't help but to ask myself "why won't they at least give it shot?" I'm not the type to put someone down because they were wrong. I'm happy if someone corrects the error.

I was told I would be the one of the only few who chose to take the red pill over the blue!!

PS- Thanks for the great deal on your thoughts.

Maybe this will help a little.

--------Question primarily for 2CH'rs-----------

Are you aware that the very essense of MC is durived from the same principles of 2CH? Here's the easiest and most practical way I can explain it. Its like getting the same stereo magic between each of the 5 speakers. You know how when a 2Ch setup is locked in, the sound stage is detailed, deep and wide? Now imagine, if you will, this same phenomenon taking place, when done correctly, 5 times over. The results are truely amazing, not a gimmick.

Not only that but the purpose of the five is to really perform like one! Lost you didn't I. You see, when the 5 have been setup and calibrated properly, it creates a 360 degree soundfield. This is just as if your hearing the instrument or voice in front of you (in its orginial intended placement) and the reverb, echo attack and decay, ect...all around you. As if the performance was taking place in the room with you.

I'm really starting to see that people don't understand what I and other are getting at. It can be a tough concept to grasp at first. Trust me it was tough for me too. But when someone with more experience and complete understanding took me through the process, it clicked. Then I was able to replicate this same thing myself...on my system. My system has its limitations, more than what my mentor's system had. But the same principles apply. The results were still similar. Similar enough to know I knew what I was doing.

I have a long ways to go, but I'm on the right track.