why do people like 2.0 channel so much???

[hermanv]

As near as I can tell, for equivalent sound quality, the price per channel is more or less fixed. So good 5 or 6 channel sound will cost you 2.5 to 3 times the cost of good 2 channel sound. I for one, can't afford it.

Neat eh? You can quote yourself, probably reduces disagreement.

We went all the way around and back to page 1.

In the end we talked about the quality of the musical experience and while multi-channel adds somthing two channel can not accomplish, for a given cost it seems many here would choose clean, good quality sound over more spatial information. I believe that reasonably answers the original posters question "Why do people like 2.0 channel so much???"

If and when the multi channel cost drops to allow equivalent quality vs two channel with the same total cost, many will switch. I might switch sooner if that lottery number comes in.

[shokhead]

I dont belive anyone would say,lets see,2.0 is cheaper so thats it for me. Sir T has it right,most HT does 2.0 just fine and just as good as a seperate 2.0 system.

[hermanv]

For my HT system I have a 5 year old NAD driving two Dahlquist fronts, the combined cost (of only the 2 channel part) was nearly centered in the 4 digit range so I didn't cheap out. This system in 2 channel mode doesn't pass muster compared to my main stereo system in sound quality (worse, it's not a hard call)

Now my main did cost more admitted, but I tried quite hard to consolidate and simply could not afford the cash to add more channels without damaging the two I had. 5 years ago "cut through" pre-amps didn't exist.

So I don't think I agree. There is the caveat that I most certainly have not heard every possible HT system available but the better processors are megabuck devices and the HT receiver/decoders I've heard just won't do the 2 channel job I've come to expect.

The Dahlquists were "leftovers" from an upgrade helping my decision, but I assume we are talking about what someone should buy starting with no existing baggage.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

For my HT system I have a 5 year old NAD driving two Dahlquist fronts, the combined cost (of only the 2 channel part) was nearly centered in the 4 digit range so I didn't cheap out. This system in 2 channel mode doesn't pass muster compared to my main stereo system in sound quality (worse, it's not a hard call)

Now my main did cost more admitted, but I tried quite hard to consolidate and simply could not afford the cash to add more channels without damaging the two I had. 5 years ago "cut through" pre-amps didn't exist.

So I don't think I agree. There is the caveat that I most certainly have not heard every possible HT system available but the better processors are megabuck devices and the HT receiver/decoders I've heard just won't do the 2 channel job I've come to expect.

The Dahlquists were "leftovers" from an upgrade helping my decision, but I assume we are talking about what someone should buy starting with no existing baggage.

I don't think you have heard enough receivers nor are all good stand alone process all that expensive. You guys look at your 2.0 systems as investments, why wouldn't you look at a 5.1 system the same way. I did, and the cost of my system didn't break the bank either. If you do your homework(listening) purchasing a good 5.1 system can be about the same price as alot of good high end two channel system.

[Arturo7]

If you do your homework(listening) purchasing a good 5.1 system can be about the same price as alot of good high end two channel system.

Don't really want to pick on you TT. You have brought up quite a few excellent points about MC that I have never considered. But I've got to call BS on this particular statement. Source equipment aside, let's assume you've got $10,000 to spend on the speaker/amplifier part of your system. 10 grand divided by two channels buys a helluva lot more quality than 10 grand divided by six channels.

[kexodusc]

Don't really want to pick on you TT. You have brought up quite a few excellent points about MC that I have never considered. But I've got to call BS on this particular statement. Source equipment aside, let's assume you've got $10,000 to spend on the speaker/amplifier part of your system. 10 grand divided by two channels buys a helluva lot more quality than 10 grand divided by six channels.

The idea that a good multi-channel system would cost more than a stereo system to acheive the same level of "performance" ignores two "truths" in audio, and is very incorrect.
My stereo would cost about double the 5.1 system in my living room. Yet the multi-channel performance offers more enjoyment, a better experience despite it's relative difficiencies. There is a tradeoff, the highs and midrange are slightly less refined, but the added benefits of a more realistic 3-d soundstage, superior imaging, and much bigger and more dynamic sound, outweigh this IMO. It's more fun to listen to. I suspect if I was to invest the same amount into my 5.1 the overall results would be even more favorable.

First, I have yet to meet an audiophile who disagrees with the notion of diminishing returns on "investment" in audio equipement. $10,000 speakers sound fabulous, but they certainly don't sound 5 times better than $2000 speakers...not even close. I'd argue thhey don't sound two times better than $2000 speakers...I know, it's difficult to put a number on it specifically, but I'm sure we can all agree that with each successive upgrade we're squeezing yet a few more percentage points out of our systems, not exponential improvements, but relatively minor leaps. Diminishing returns and all. It stands to reason you are more effectively allocating your resources buying "lower-end" gear for a 5.1 system.

Second, after establishing the differences in performance aren't aren't directly proportional to the differences in price, it's important to understand that in a multi-channel system you DON'T NEED speakers of such high quality to achieve the same leval of performance in your 2-channel system.

Off the top of my head I can think of a few reasons why. This is going to require rethinking the way you build your system however. Fortunately, many manufacturers have already begun to change the way they build speakers.

In any speaker worth having, the drivers represent the largest cost of material - if they don't then this speaker wasn't built effectively. (notwithstanding the inevitable exception to this rule, but show me a speaker with $5000 invested in high grade electronic components and $1000 worth of drivers and I'll find you a much better one for $4000 in drivers and $1000 in higher grade electonic components) Most often, higher priced woofers AND tweeters cost more money to produce only to achieve a lower frequency of resonance. Lower response, but not better in the common ranges.
The 0.1 channel of the multi-channel system allows a whole new and better topology for reproducing the audio spectrum. (not to mention providing superior flexibility in placing the bass reproducing speakers in the best location in the room, which is rarely where you'd place your main speakers). By dedicating a woofer (or two) to the lowest octave and incorporating a high-pass filter somewhere in the 1st or second octave, you either dramatically mitigate the loss of linear control in the remaining drivers by relieving them of the low frequencies at their limits of response (where they perform poorest), or you decrease the need for higher priced drivers that are required to overcome the dilemma of choosing between more low frequency response or superior performance in the remaining regions..

This doesn't even take into consideration that a 5.1 system will not need the same level of refinement to reproduce the equivalent soundstage and imaging as a stereo system, just by virtue of having more speakers.

It's not much of a stretch to see why a 5.1 system, with a more effective allocation of resources, could offer more satisfaction and performance than a 2.0 system. Furthermore by incorporating the cost of 2 separate systems (ie: E-stat/Kex's separate 2.0 stereo and 5.1 systems) into one system, you can have your cake and eat it too.

To me the cost of the equipment is not a good argument at all. The remaining hurdles in the transtion to multi-channel audio instead remain with the continued struggle to find a universal mainstream medium to deliver the format. I also believe that for many people space and complexity might be a bit of a deterrent. Let's face it - 5 speakers in very small rooms is going to be tough. But if multi-channel fails it certainly shouldn't because of cost, or inferior performance.

[Arturo7]

You make a very good point on the subwoofer covering the lower frequencies so the drivers don't have to. The same can be done with stereo and you've still got 3 more channels of value.

The law of diminishing returns certainly applies to speakers. However, you still get higher quality at $5,000 per amp/speaker than $1,666 per amp/speaker. 3 times the quality? Probably not. 50% more? Probably, if not more. This is of course, highly subjective.

Soundstage is only one aspect of a sound system's performance. Accuracy is another. I would rather have a violin sound like a violin than my room sound like a concert hall. Perhaps this preference is at the core of this thread's disagreement.

So yes, cost is very much a part of this discussion.

Then there's the issue of 60 years worth of recordings vs only a few.