[Harry Lavo]

wrote in message
...
Steven Sullivan wrote:
These are all very true but the primary reason is the lack of a
suitable population of buyers with five or seven ears.

The fact that we have two ears does not mean that two *playback*
channels are optimum (except for headphones). That's because
the playback 'system' isn't just the listener and the loudspeakers
speakers...it includes a *space*.

Which does not mean two channels are not optimum. Ultimately it is all
about what goes into each ear.


Multichannel can produce a *more* realistic reproduction of
a live event than even the best two-channel system.

I have yet to hear this actually take place. Can you cite what
system/source material out performs the very best 2 channel has ever
produced?

You likely will not consider this definitive, but....

......I've had good two channel stereo in many different listening
environments...none bad...some superb...using large Maggies, IMF monitors,
and full range Thiels (3.5's and 2 2's). The systems have been driven by an
ARC 6b preamp, phono by an Accuphase AC-2mc through a modified, battery
driven Marcof PPA-2 headamp, various Phillips and Marantz and Sony CD
players, and ARC (D90b) and VTL (STL 85) power amps. While the various
speakers did not sound exactly alike, all were considered top flight by
general reputation (and by my own evaluation) and I would rate them as
roughly comparable in sound quality.

However, on classical music, my current multichannel system using five of
those full range Thiels and lesser preamps and amps (3 Onkyo 301p preamps, 5
Outlaw M200 monoblocks) leaves every single one of those two channel systems
in the dust. And this is in a room that is not as good as some of the rooms
the two channel system was in. For demonstration purposes, I consider the
current Haitink/LSO Beethoven disks to be representative of the very best
orchestral recordings out there.

I can also attest from experimentation that the three-channel RCA Living
Stereo disks usually have an edge, versus the two channel mixes, when
listening in SACD. The orchestral soundstage retains more spread and
dimensionality than with two channel, and solo instruments (such as a piano
in a concerto) remain more firmly differentiated from the orchestra. It
simply sounds more like being at the performance. And with rear channel
ambience added, even more so.

FWIW, I am struggling with the issue of whether to give up Multichannel to
move into a smaller apartment when I turn seventy in three years, and so far
at this point have concluded I just can't do it...I get to much pleasure.
My first decade of collecting recordings out of college was mostly
classical....CD was not enough of an "improvment" for me to duplicate that
collection....but I am rapidly doing that now in multichannel, mostly SACD.
I continue to attend live concerts, and I am amazed at how close to that
sound I can now get in my own living room.

You won't consider this definitive, but it surely is heartfelt from someone
to whom multichannel has been a total rejuvenator.

This was
recognized even in the earliest days of sound reproduction,

Not sure I would give anything too much credibility from then. They
obviously were not using today's cutting edge 2 channel playback.

when three-channel playback was found to be better than
two-channel.

Suggestive that three channel may be inherently better than two channel
at best. Far from definitive proof of fact.

See my comments above. IME, it is better. Not night and day, but
incrementally better. Multichannel, however, is revolutionarily better.