"It's the Multichannel, Stupid"

[kexodusc]

Just to add to Sir Terrences excellent points:

The absolute worst argument I've heard in favor of 2-channel rigs is the "fewer components, but higher quality" notion.

Put simply, if someone has $5000 to spend on a rig, this argument suggests that 2 speakers of $2500 would offer superior performance to 5 speakers of $1000.
There are many problems with this assumption. First, as I'm sure everyone can agree, the sonic benefits of a speaker costing 2.5 times are real, but not directly proportional to the increase in cost. The old diminishing returns law.

The use of additional speakers can narrow the performance gap very quickly. Want proof, look at many a speaker company's product line. You're sure to find a small, 2-way bookshelf, and a larger model, with multiple drivers - possibly a 2.5 way with 2 woofers, a midwoofer-tweeter-midwoofer alignment, a 3-way speaker, or even models with far more drivers and greater complexity. Quite often the price jumps considerably as drivers are added...doubling even tripling the cost for the performance they provide.

Adding speakers in a 5.1 or 7.1 setup can not only reproduce the same benefits, but expand on them. In addition to the excellent points Sir T made on spatial cues, the addition of the center channel alone on the front soundstage reduces a tremendous amount of stress on the front left and right speakers. You'll find the speakers maintain superior linearity in performance, keep distortion lower, transient response a bit better - all real, measurable qualities that can produce higher fidelity.

The end result is a more effective, logical approach to reproducing audio, where the speakers are capable of doing "more with less". I won't suggest that a multi-channel approach is always better, or can always offer even comprable levels of resolution or detail or whatever buzzword you want to use. It can and does sometimes, but not always. And it's not that simple. Instead you'll have to think of the total audio reproduction as a basket of various characteristics. 2-channel rigs may offer slight improvments in the finer details of violin's harmonics. But multi-channel setups counter with improved imaging, separation, depth, soundstage and dynamics.

I have 2 rigs. My 2-channel audio setup costs about as much for me to build as my 7.1 system. Maybe a little less but it's close. On cd's there's no comparison. But on the SACD's I have, I almost always prefer to trade the small loss in speaker resolution for the multichannel benefits. What multichannel gives up, it more than gives back in the far more realistic immersive environment it creates.

The more you spend on a system, all the more it will cost you to make your next upgrade. Sooner or later it becomes more cost effective to upgrade to 5.1 (or 5.0, whatever) than to upgrade a 2.0 system to yield the same performance improvements.

Multichannel audio's been around for what, 5 years for 90% of us and it's already converted alot of audiophiles. I suspect in a few more years it'll win over even more.

[GMichael]

Put simply, if someone has $5000 to spend on a rig, this argument suggests that 2 speakers of $2500 would offer superior performance to 5 speakers of $1000.

.

I'm thinking, with $5000 to spend, I get two mains at $4000 a pair instead of $5000.
The other $1k gets spent on the other 3 or 5, at $300 for the center & $300 a pair on the surrounds & rears. No need for all 5 or 7 to be of the same quality as the mains & center.

[kexodusc]

I'm thinking, with $5000 to spend, I get two mains at $4000 a pair instead of $5000.
The other $1k gets spent on the other 3 or 5, at $300 for the center & $300 a pair on the surrounds & rears. No need for all 5 or 7 to be of the same quality as the mains & center.

I don't think there's a good rule of thumb for how much to spend on each speaker in a multichannel setup...people can decide that for themselves..I personally would want the front 3 speakers equal in sound, whatever that costs, then go from there. The surrounds can be a bit lower in cost/performance as long as they match the system well. Some people might want 7 identical speakers. I've done that, and have discovered it to be unecessary and not even optimal in my setup. In the end, personal preference will dictate, as always.

[musicman1999]

It is still a personal preference issue.It's like whats your favorite peanut butter,i have a favorite brand and i won't eat anything else,someone could point out that a different brand could have better ingrediants,less fat or less calories,but i will still go back to my favorite(Kraft smooth).On the audio side i do like my music in 2 channel format,my cd player is my best quality source and my system is well set up for cd playback.I do have a sacd player and it is set up for multichannel playback,i have about 15 sacd but only about 6 are multchannel,not a delibrate act,it just worked out that way.I have tried cd with various types of multichannel playback and it just did not excite me much.I found it very inconsistant,some material would be alright,some would be terrible.I did get best results using neo-6 music,but not good enough to sway me over.Just my opinion of course.

bill