[Harry Lavo]

"Bret Ludwig" 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*.

Multichannel can produce a *more* realistic reproduction of
a live event than even the best two-channel system. This was
recognized even in the earliest days of sound reproduction,
when three-channel playback was found to be better than
two-channel.

But what about four, five, six, seven, eight, or more channels? Where
is the evidence for their benefit?

I ran a phantom third channel for years (the fi was my, but it was
superficially very seductive) and I am prepared to accept (true) three
channel as an improvement. I'm also old enough to remember quad and it
wasn't all that great, but then again, it had a short lifespan in which
to develop. But five? Seven? Nine? Maybe we should emulate large radial
engines and have 14, 18 or 24 channels.

One, two, or three channels each have cogent arguments. Two is a good
compromise and there is a modest library of excellent two channel
recordings in circulation. The others do not.

If you can accept three channel as an improvement, that is why five instead
of four.

The surround channels add a) ambience and naturalness for classical music
and most jazz, and b) a mix option for adventurous sound sound for pop
mixes. The added ambience primarily has the effect of much better
delineating the soundstage and air between instruments in small combos. The
adventurous pop mixes are more a matter of personal taste and the talent of
the people doing the mix. Most of them I like. A few I don't.

But five can help with music as opposed to four, so long as the center
channel is well integrated. If not, I'd rather have four and a quad mix,
such as many of the older reissues from the quad era.

I've not really had a chance to critically listen to six or seven, but I
think I can understand their role. With a 5.0 or 5.1 system, essentially
the surround sound is about a 270 degree system. The area directly behind
(where you can't localize anyway) doesn't seem to "fill". A 6.0 or 7.0
system provides a bit more "fill" in this area, I understand. I have a
sixth Thiel 3.5 to put into my system, but nowhere to put it since the back
of my listening room contains a consists of a stairwell.