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

I'm sorry, I guess you haven't heard 2 or 4 track pre-recorded factory Reel to reel tapes. Played through one of the many fine systems that so many of us in paritcular have. You can't even think about going to put on a CD let alone a Multi track recording. Capturing the musuic in this way opens up ones senses to the art of reproduced music.

I have both. All ALON speakers on the multichannel set-up.
$10K to spend... I'd be happy as a pig in #$% with the 2 channel set-up I'd be buying.

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?

If you have to distribute $10,000 over 5+ speakers, a subwoofer, 6+ channels of amplification, a processor and the usual digital source, in music fidelity terms you've got nuthin'. Put that money into two channels only and the quality of everything goes up dramatically, without spending a dollar more. And you'll get satisfying sound out of movies too. You can also have better vocal clarity than any center channel speaker can provide you. In all ways, the 2 channel alternative will be better, except one -- you won't have primary sonic events happening behind you. So what? -- You don't in real circumstances anyway. Moreover, the number of multi-channel recordings that make any good use of the format is tiny, and as we've seen in prior attempts at more than 2-channel sound, very few engineers have any clue how to use the format to contribute to fidelity, as opposed to novelty and special effects. It might be that some "audiophiles and audio enthusiasts" will accept the sonic degradations of multi-channel in that budget, but musicophiles who care about genuine fidelity won't.

Phil