I have heard voiced, by people who ought to know better, that for
purposes of music reproduction one could often obtain superior results
with a 5.1 channel system over a stereo system for a given amount of
money.

To argue that music recorded in stereo (and let's talk for the moment
of true stereo) sounds better when played through 2 1/2 times as many
channels than it does when played back in stereo, is ridiculous on the
face of it.

Whether music recorded for five channels sounds better when played
through five channels-is that the notorious Blumlein Pentagram at
work?-than does stereo music played through two, is another discussion
of course. How much true five channel music is there, though?

Some people may argue they like the sound of the processed 5.1 channel
playback better than they like the sound of two channels played back
through two channels. Indeed. I remember well the practice of
connecting a third speaker across the hot terminals of a stereo amp
(with common grounded outputs!) which a lot of people really used to
like. Of course, they really liked their Hammond Accutronics spring
reverbs too, you know, the ones in a silver fronted flat box with RCA
connectors on the back, although they were commonly recognized as no
different from two Fender guitar outboard reverbs. And no such
audiophile was happy without graphic EQ as well, which should go
without saying. And we all knew that you hadn't heard "Night on Bald
Mountain" until you had heard it run through an old 122 or 147
Leslie-figuring out getting the proper level from your preamp or eight
track deck to the Leslie amp and keying the chorale motors were an
audio rite of passage every Halloween. (Use of the Combo Preamp was
cheating!)

wrote in message
oups.com...
I have heard voiced,

No one else has. Go have a checkup.

No, but they sure smelled....Go for a checkup yourself. May I recommend
the speculum analyzer?

wrote in message
oups.com...
No, but

....but, you are still an idiot.

"Some people may argue they like the sound of the processed 5.1 channel

playback better than they like the sound of two channels played back
through two channels. Indeed. I remember well the practice of
connecting a third speaker across the hot terminals of a stereo amp
(with common grounded outputs!) which a lot of people really used to
like. Of course, they really liked their Hammond Accutronics spring
reverbs too, you know, the ones in a silver fronted flat box with RCA
connectors on the back, although they were commonly recognized as no
different from two Fender guitar outboard reverbs. And no such
audiophile was happy without graphic EQ as well, which should go
without saying. And we all knew that you hadn't heard "Night on Bald
Mountain" until you had heard it run through an old 122 or 147
Leslie-figuring out getting the proper level from your preamp or eight
track deck to the Leslie amp and keying the chorale motors were an
audio rite of passage every Halloween. (Use of the Combo Preamp was
cheating!)"

So, you've shown that you understand the SOTA has changed.

The idea that mucic made for stereo might sound better to some people
is no different than some people saying they like to listen to mucic
played back from a some piece of **** LP with all it's inherent flaws
when compared to a CD. It's preference.

The use of DSP can make 2 channel stereo sound better to some people
than plain old 2 channel. Get over it.