who here listens to movies in stereo only?

[89grand]

Well, to me "better" in this context is the function, not word games about personal value decisions.

That's really my point. I mean, I can sit here and say I prefer speakers that can only play from 250hz-6khz, and no one can say I don't prefer them. But clearly there is a completely more than valid argument for saying speakers that are much closer to 20hz-20khz are actually much "better" in general, whether I think (or pretend not to think so) or not.

 

[Duckzilla]

In answer to the OP....not me.

 

[Duckzilla]

I have yet to see a film without a 2-channel option.
Nothing was supposed to be played in 5.1 in the first place.
It is an artificial created configuration.

If I were to buy gear to provide same quality 5.1 as I have 2.0; I will have to sell house, cars, motorcycles, boat, neighbours house and my wife.

"dolph"

Being just a little close-minded, aren't we? Dumb argument, otherwise we'd all be listening in mono to this day.

 

[Duckzilla]

A great 2.0 system easy makes it better than a great multichannel system.
Reason: No real great multichannel systems can be purchased at less than 5 times the price of similar quality 2.0 systems.
And furthermore the best 2.0 system (in the whole of the universe performs better than the best multichannelsystem.

"dolph"

Just out of interest, on what basis do you come up with this equation of "5 times"? And I've travelled a little in the universe, and by far the best sound I've experienced are the cranial 19.2 implants I had done on Alpha Ceti 6. It's like....you're there.

 

[tybrad]

Just out of interest, on what basis do you come up with this equation of "5 times"? And I've travelled a little in the universe, and by far the best sound I've experienced are the cranial 19.2 implants I had done on Alpha Ceti 6. It's like....you're there.

And did you find Khan there?

 

[RichPA]

As this thread now seems to be more about comments on other members than about the original topic, we're done here.