[bob]

John Doe wrote:
About 10yrs ago, I read an editorial in Fi magazine (remember them ?)
concering multichannel (mc) vs 2ch reproduction. The gist of the
article was that mc audio was (at the time) based on the audio standards
established for the movie industry, which are vastly different from the
needs of audiophile listeners. Video is about recreation of an
artificial event; audio is about the recreation of a natural event- 2
different needs. The article went on to say that the audio industry
should create its own audio reproduction standard for mc that can be
incorporated into the video mc standard so both sides win.

This was (and probably still is) a high-end conceit, but it's not an
accepted fact outside that little world. Just as a good speaker will
reproduce any sound accurately, musical or otherwise, so a good
multichannel system should reproduce any 3-dimensional soundspace--real
or simulated--well. It happens that MC was largely developed with movie
theaters in mind, but that historical circumstance isn't really
relevant to the present-day capabilities of these systems.

There is, of course, a fair bit of debate on the 5-identical-speakers
vs. dipoles-in-the-rear question--a debate that I don't think is
settled even among technical experts. But there are people who know a
lot more about sound reproduction than anybody at Fi who think dipoles
are the right choice even for music.

JGH was an original proponent of mc for audio, but with the surround
channels set up to subtly enhance the sound coming from the main
channels rather than trying to use mc to recreate the sound of
thunderstorm behind the listener. Used as JGH proposed, mc can be a
valuable addition to audio reproduction. Used to recreate a T-Rex
attack behind the listener and we are left with the current situation,
which is really of no use to the serious listener.

This isn't a system problem, it's a recording problem.

bob