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

Ideally, one builds a system, 2C or otherwise, that does not "add" tone to a recording that doesn't have it, nor delete tone from a recording that does. Certainly, I build my systems that way.

Of course, fidelity is a function of a whole system. A speaker, amp or source alone cannot save it if the remaining components underperform. Balance of factors is essential, since nothing is perfect.

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 no, I don't 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, 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.

Phil

Some people believe Mono is the highest fidelity medium. I don't. Well-made stereo works with human spatial perception in a way mono nearly completely lacks. Monaural can have terrific tone, but its lack of dimension is too extreme to offer balance of factors. Plus, the supply of mono recordings is limited, and stereo played mono isn't as good.

Phil