paradigm HTIB...

[Woochifer]

Well you know you won't get agreement from me because Multi-channel has not proven itself to me nor as a staying entity in high demand - at elast not In British Columbia - a wealthy Province - to you it has so that is fine. Degree of step- up in performance is subjective. Would I take 5 B&W 602S3s all around for the same money as two AN K? No because 95% of what is available is 2 channel music and music quality in movies or 2 channel SACD is to me far far superior than what the 602S3 or Paradigm Studio 40 can put out. If multi-channel were critical then that's different - but then I would also have to put up with a mid level receiver most likely to keep the cost down which to me further greatly hampers the sound - again I know you think receivers give up next to nothing to separates so your oipinion will be different from mine.

Multichannel not in high demand? What do you think DVDs are? It's the DVD format that's driven the massive shift to multichannel systems the last few years. All this demand for HTIB systems has come about because of the multichannel soundtracks that come with DVDs. I hardly see any demand for entry level two-channel systems. High end stores now stay in business by offering complete system installation services, and nearly all of this business is multichannel. Out of the high end audio stores that have gone out of business the last couple of years around here (at least five by my own count), all but one of them dealt almost exclusively in two-channel audio gear. And if you're talking about multichannel music, music DVDs (along with TV shows) are the fastest growing segment in the DVD market.

To me, the difference between the Studio 40 and other options that I heard in the $2,000 range were audible, but not so significant as to justify losing multichannel capability to get that extra improvement. Like I said, you're not going to step down to monophonic playback so that you can go with a higher level Audio Note model, and for me, reserving my entire budget for two-channel playback is an equally futile exercise given the source material out there.

And no, I don't agree that "receivers give up next to nothing to separates"; I've always said that separates are a step up from midlevel receivers, but whether or not that step up is worth the 4x price differential is an entirely different question.

My philosphy still holds that I can do 2 channel very very right or do home theater half assed and take to me a big drop in quality in 95% of what I would listen to of 2 channel. I set my self up in a good postion of being patient this way becase I can add at later dates to convert what I have to multi-channel should it fully take off. The problem I see is that if matching rear speakers cannot be used because Dolby says that is bad then it proves my earlier points about matching rear speakers. The N805 and the N803 sound nothing alike - same drivers or not they sound little alike - the tonal timbral structure of the N802 or N803 is simply not the same at all despite using the same tweeters and materials - The 40 and 100 from Paradigm sound nothing alike either for that matter - so using an entirely different make of rear speaker will also not sound the same. The AN E has more bass than the K but there are differences in dynamics power and room filling warmth - while all of the speakers have a "house" sound they are not "matched" and manufacturers stating that to me can be viewed as a scam to get you to buy their speakers - just my opinion...it is either a match or it is not. So dolby says not to match the rears basically.

I don't know how you interpret my statement to read "dolby says not to match the rears basically." Their entire guideline advises how to properly position the surround speakers if you're using the system for both movies and multichannel music. That's because movies and multichannel music are mixed somewhat differently, and have different optimal setups. Multichannel music sounds best when the surround speakers are lower towards the ear and pointed into the listening position, while a lot of movies (particularly older ones with less split surround activity) sound better with the surround speakers high mounted and diffused. Mounting a floorstanding speaker high enough to diffuse a monophonic surround track according to Dolby's guidelines and still have the drivers low enough to preserve the directional cues for newer movie soundtracks and multichannel music is not easy. Having five identical floorstanding speakers is fine for mixing studio, but for a home system that will play a combination of newer and older movies, along with multichannel music, it's not particularly practical. Even if you have five identical bookshelf speakers, the rear speakers are not going to be positioned right at ear level because of this.

And I don't see how you note that the Nautilus and Studio lines sound "little alike" or "nothing alike"; it's not like the 805s are muted sounding with a choppy midrange, while the 802s are all about booming bass and blazing highs. Same thing with the 40 and 100. These models have subtle differences, especially in the lows, but it's not like I listen to the 40 and the 100 and suddenly think that I'm listening to an entirely different family of speakers. The similarities are more than close enough to use in a surround setup. I use the Studio 20 and 40 in a surround setup, and the stable front-to-back and side-to-side imaging and depth perception can be seamless with a good soundtrack, hardly what I would call "half-assed". That depth perception and imaging can be destroyed by something that does actually sound "little alike" but that difference would be more akin to the Studio 40 and the Bose 301s (which I had been using before adding the 20s), than the 20 and the 40 or the 40 and the 100.

If you're waiting for multichannel to take off, that ship has already left the dock.

I don't have any problem with any of this because I already said that for movies the rear effects have little impact and 2 speakers properly set-up provide the wow factor from the rear wall reflections. If newer movies than Saving Private Ryan don't have it on the mix then I guess you will need rears.

Now I've been referring mainly to movies not multi-channel music so remember that this is what I've been targeting with my post. I'm not in anyway discrediting multi-channel movies or music - just that if I personally weight 95% of my system to 2 channel then i will invest most ofmy resources to get that as prestine as possible while being able to grow without having to trade speakers. If I start with 5.1 all at once and it's just "O.K." then when I want to upgrade I take a huge loss and have to basically start from scratch.

It's not discrediting so much as it doesn't sound to me like you've actually heard 5.1 the way it was supposed to be heard. As someone else has already noted, it's not about the wow factor, it's about making a movie more involving and engrossing. In a multichannel configuration, you're actually trying to diffuse and minimize the rear wall reflections because the surround speakers impart the ambient and directional cues by design rather than by random occurence (which is exactly what the rear wall reflections cause).

With multichannel, you have to get the speaker positioning and the processor settings done right, which means setting up the surround speakers according to the Dolby guidelines, positioning the speakers to the ITU reference alignment, using the delay timing to compensate for any distance mismatches, using a SPL meter to correctly set the levels, etc. Two-channel is much more forgiving, and much easier to demo properly. A lot of high end stores that I've visited don't get this, and the demos just sounded wrong even with high end components all around.