Quote Originally Posted by Arturo7
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.