why do people like 2.0 channel so much???

[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.

[shokhead]

So all you 2ch guys dont watch movies on 5.1?

[Resident Loser]

So all you 2ch guys dont watch movies on 5.1?

...as I said to E-Stat in another thread, I don't...got me a tee-vee, a VCR and a DVD player...if I had the gear to watch movies, why wouldn't I use it for music...

I've said it before and I'll say it again...it's all just so much hoo-ha! Someone, somewhere has sold the public a bill-of-goods...you can't live without it...the HT, the gonzo SUV, the designer clothes, the $6 dollar cuppa', the friggin' cell-phone...

All this cr@p is a smokescreen...if Marx thought religion was the opiate of the masses, I wonder how he would characterize all this consumer garbage...

Look, and please follow me here...all this $h!t is stuff that trickled down from the folks who have more money than brains...rich folks have had their fancy cars and big houses, the projection TVs, didn't care if a cheezburger cost 'em 20 bux...if you convince enough of us mere mortals that these things will somehow make our lives "better" because we too can "have it all" it distracts us from the real problems...sooo, we have latch-key kids because both parents have to work to keep up the "lifestyle", more stress, $h!t food from Col. Macwendybelle because no one cooks, rampant obesity and health issues, reliance on prescription drugs to help us sleep or stay awake or deal with high blood pressure or stress...folks who don't think twice about $200 sneakers and continue to aid and abet the continuing upward spiral...the "average" family with an average CC debt of $7000...get my drift...it's a all big game...

Before some yahoo takes me to task for being too far off-topic...I prefer stereo...further, I prefer vinyl and RTR tapes, not because they are better formats(which they very well might be) but because it has a ritual...it's more involving. Setting-up the TT/cart requires a certain ability some might find daunting, cleaning the disks is certainly ritual, being steps closer to the event is compelling, threading tape, cleaning and demagnetizing heads, feeling like an archivist or keeper of tradition is also a part of it. I have a theory that much of the wire hoopla and similar things are the result of the "digitizing" the sources, it fills a void...Yes, I do listen to CDs but they are even more "impersonal" than cassettes were...they're throwaways, it's all too easy...playing music isn't the "event" it is with analog, I feel less compelled to make it anything special or even bother to sit to listen...but, hey...it's fast becoming a disposable world for folks who can't grasp more than a sound-bite or so it seems...

I have system requirements the newer stuff cannot fulfill...and, contrary to popular opinion, that fact does not make me less "educated" but more so...it requires more time, effort and energy to seek out gear that will meet my needs and discarding stuff that doesn't. In the process I am exposed to all the formats and gear at varying price levels...I learn what I can, and arrive at reasonable conclusions based on facts, not the premise of somehow improving my lot in life.

jimHJJ(...good listening...)

[ericl]

Yo, Guys,

CHILL OUT!!!!!

alright? you're getting mighty personal in here, and its embarassing.

don't make me shut this thread down!!

your pal,

Eric

[shokhead]

...as I said to E-Stat in another thread, I don't...got me a tee-vee, a VCR and a DVD player...if I had the gear to watch movies, why wouldn't I use it for music...

I just asked.

I've said it before and I'll say it again...it's all just so much hoo-ha! Someone, somewhere has sold the public a bill-of-goods...you can't live without it...the HT, the gonzo SUV, the designer clothes, the $6 dollar cuppa', the friggin' cell-phone...

I dont own a SUV. Never been to Starbucks. Jeans and t-shirts for me. Never owned or even used a cell-phone. Shoots all that down the drain.

All this cr@p is a smokescreen...if Marx thought religion was the opiate of the masses, I wonder how he would characterize all this consumer garbage...

Look, and please follow me here...all this $h!t is stuff that trickled down from the folks who have more money than brains...rich folks have had their fancy cars and big houses, the projection TVs, didn't care if a cheezburger cost 'em 20 bux...if you convince enough of us mere mortals that these things will somehow make our lives "better" because we too can "have it all" it distracts us from the real problems...sooo, we have latch-key kids because both parents have to work to keep up the "lifestyle", more stress, $h!t food from Col. Macwendybelle because no one cooks, rampant obesity and health issues, reliance on prescription drugs to help us sleep or stay awake or deal with high blood pressure or stress...folks who don't think twice about $200 sneakers and continue to aid and abet the continuing upward spiral...the "average" family with an average CC debt of $7000...get my drift...it's a all big game...
My sneakers are always on sale,hopefully under 70 bucks.

Never,ever had a CC debt

Before some yahoo takes me to task for being too far off-topic...I prefer stereo...further, I prefer vinyl and RTR tapes, not because they are better formats(which they very well might be) but because it has a ritual...it's more involving. Setting-up the TT/cart requires a certain ability some might find daunting, cleaning the disks is certainly ritual, being steps closer to the event is compelling, threading tape, cleaning and demagnetizing heads, feeling like an archivist or keeper of tradition is also a part of it. I have a theory that much of the wire hoopla and similar things are the result of the "digitizing" the sources, it fills a void...Yes, I do listen to CDs but they are even more "impersonal" than cassettes were...they're throwaways, it's all too easy...playing music isn't the "event" it is with analog, I feel less compelled to make it anything special or even bother to sit to listen...but, hey...it's fast becoming a disposable world for folks who can't grasp more than a sound-bite or so it seems...

I have system requirements the newer stuff cannot fulfill...and, contrary to popular opinion, that fact does not make me less "educated" but more so...it requires more time, effort and energy to seek out gear that will meet my needs and discarding stuff that doesn't. In the process I am exposed to all the formats and gear at varying price levels...I learn what I can, and arrive at reasonable conclusions based on facts, not the premise of somehow improving my lot in life.

jimHJJ(...good listening...)

In the end,its ok that you listen to 2ch and its ok someothers use HT for both. Some of your thoughts are quite a loud of crap,imo of course. I could easily figure all 2ch users are fat,short slobs that wearout there chairs within 6 months but i dont think that at all.

[kexodusc]

Arturo7: Adding a subwoofer to a stereo isn't the same as using it in a 5.1 system. The information the sub receives from 5.1 is discrete, and mastered with the subwoofer in mind. A stereo requires digital processing, or a filter with a few more crossover and connection difficulties. While I agree a 2-channels system is improved with a sub as well, I believe the 5.1 system (or even a 2.1 system if it exists) uses it much better.

Wow! 50% improvement from $1666 to $5000 ? In my honest opinion I've always reduced felt it to be more in the area of 15-25%, if that. Maybe a few years back, but $1000 speakers are sounding better and better these days, I haven't heard the same leaps and bounds in the more expensive models (yet). But I understand and can appreciate the subjective "values" we place on that last 10%. But I definitely do not hear 50% more music, 50% more frequencies, 50% more instruments etc, between a $1000 speaker and $5000 speaker. I'll respect your opinion though, I'm sure to some other people the difference is even greater (or less). Whatever subjective values you wish to place on it the point remains that 2 speakers are being fed a workload that 5 speakers of lower "performance" could handle at a comparable level once relieved of the burden. Perhaps not as "accurately" as you had said, but close. I'm quite sure I can listen to almost any $1,666 speaker and identify a violin sounds like a violin 100% as much as on a $5000 or $10000 speaker. Does the $5000 speaker sound better? Yes, at least to me, but the improvements become increasingly marginal. Enough that I believe the value gap can be easily overcome by amalgamating 2 separate systems into 1. Though, for those with no interest in home theater, I'll admit there would be less value in it. I concede, I spend no less than 1 hour a day (when I'm not on the road at work) listening to music on my system, often more. I spend at least 10 hours a week watching movies, or HDTV, (and even the odd video game) where the home theater side is important, so I'm probably in the 60/40 camp in favour of music. That makes it easier for me to value the multi-channel investment.

I suspect if we were to define "accuracy" I suspect we'd get a number of criteria, "resolution and finer detail" as you seem to imply being one, 3-d soundstaging and imaging being another. What draws you in more? Which is more important? That's subjective, to me they're about equal I think - lack of imaging and staging sounds anything BUT real. A violin doesn't sound like a violin when it sounds like Cello, a cymbal, and a horn all at the same time. And I wouldn't care where a dull sounding harp was emitting sounds from if it was lifeless and flat. I don't think I could determine that one of these aspects draws me in more than the other. But we can both admit that some speakers are far better at one of these than the other...in a 5.1 system, with the imaging and soundstage by design being far superior (adding a great element of detail and resolution in itself), I would probably focus on a speaker that invested more design into the "accuracy" element than the soundstaging element to achieve similar results - back to the efficient resource allocation notion.

I'm struggling with this decision now...tempted to move my main speakers and amp into my HT and slowly match the surround channels to it. But as I mentioned before, the space limitations (well, spousal-acceptance-factor) are interfering with this idea. And as good as my speakers in my 5.1 system are, I don't enjoy them nearly as much in 2.0 as my stereo speakers, so I'd hate to "downgrade" all the 2.0 music I have.