[ciggiu89]

I would love to hear some thoughts regarding the future of conventional 2 channel systems for the home; this in in the face of sound bars and surround. Do you think they will survive and why and how do you feel they should be rebranded once again to meet the needs of the everyday consumer?

[FullRangeMan]

Multi Chánnel is a poor try tô fix the poor sound stage of monopóle speaker, Stereo sound is a classic standard format, but both may be out best by Stereo Head phone.

[FullRangeMan]

Do you could reshape the titlê of this topic to avoid format wars.
Thanks

[Jazzman53]

I've come full circle; from 2-channel to 5.1, now 2-channel again, and I'm never going back.  Two-channel has coherent imaging and a purity that multi-channel just can't match, IMHO.         

[WGH]

ciggiu89 - Welcome to AC
A good place to start reading and comment would be in a similar thread

"The Death of the Home Stereo System" CNN
https://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=170857.0

[WC]

I've come full circle; from 2-channel to 5.1, now 2-channel again, and I'm never going back.  Two-channel has coherent imaging and a purity that multi-channel just can't match, IMHO.       

Why not do both?

[Phil A]

Welcome!

[JLM]

We're still in the experimental stages of multi-channel.  Just look at the all the variations and formats out there.  If done "right" multi-channel is superior to stereo, but that's a big "if".  First the multi-channel design needs to be standardized, next the mixing is really complex and can easily be messed up, then you need the right speaker setup/designs for whatever that future format will be, and finally you need a big enough room to allow you and your's to sit in the middle away from all those speakers.  Don't see the masses going for junking up their limited living spaces with hordes of loudspeakers. 

Stereo has the advantage of being a forward presentation format so speakers, room, and listener locations can be more flexible.  Cost is another consideration.  Given a budget, better components can be fit into a 2-channel setup than a multi-channel one.  The recording industry would have to relearn how to record/mix/master. 

But dumb consumers will always go for the latest, even if quality goes down (like those all in one box HT systems) and brag about "how much they got".  I see audio staying 2-channel and movies staying multi-channel.  For me, 99% of my TV watching is one-channel.

[RonN5]

Two channel and surround are different but both can be very enjoyable.  I don't pretend for a minute that my two channel system sounds the same as live music....some days it sounds better....some days not as good...but never the same....recordings, room size/refelections/dynamics, etc., but that doesn't mean I don't enjoy it.

The other day, I rented a car for a few days with a really nice sound system...it sounded really good...total immersion...not the same as two channel but really good.....it made me think that I wouldn't mind having both.

I suspect the biggest issues for either format long term is space utilization (footprint space), wired connections vs wireless, the cost of good sound and lifestyle.

[RDavidson]

I don't see 2 channel going away any time soon. It is the perfect middle ground for those who don't want a full HT system, but want something MUCH better than a sound bar. I used to have both HT and 2 channel but just got tired of all the HT stuff in the family room. So now I have a very nice 2 channel setup in the family room. And if I really want the theater experience (for a big action or sci-fi movie) I'll go to the movie theater. If I had a room I could dedicate to HT I'd probably do the whole HT thing again.

[Russell Dawkins]

I can see there being a near-death of the two box system for the average consumer—even one wanting better than small blue-tooth speaker sound. The convenience and space saving of a one box floor standing system would be attractive to many consumers, especially if the sound was good—wide bandwidth, wide dynamic range, low distortion and no wires or hookup complications, just a power cable. Some semblance of a spatial effect (enough for most liteners) could be achieved easily with multiple drivers in that one box. Most consumers, even picky ones demanding beautiful sound, really don't care much at all for pin point imaging or soudstage width, let alone 'height' replication, nor should they, really.

All this is true only for those for whom sound reproduction is not a hobby, in other words 99.5% of the population.

But as to the original question: no, two channel will not die—the spatial effect over mono is worthwhile to most and the complexity of anything more than 2.1 is not worthwhile, except to the afforementioned 0.5%.

[Swann36]

I wonder if the seemingly neverending One Box solution that many younger people chase after will end up bringing back solutions like the Radiogram ..not in terms of radio & tt in a box but rather a piece if funiture sufficiently wide enough to allow a proper separation of 2 non micro sized speakers and hence a 2 channel system will reside once again in the living rooms of the many

[JLM]

I wonder if the seemingly neverending One Box solution that many younger people chase after will end up bringing back solutions like the Radiogram ..not in terms of radio & tt in a box but rather a piece if funiture sufficiently wide enough to allow a proper separation of 2 non micro sized speakers and hence a 2 channel system will reside once again in the living rooms of the many

History repeats itself as does marketing trends.  Technology (digital simplification/miniaturization and wireless speakers) is helping reduce the domestic impact.  Some respected companies like Amphion have reportedly less placement sensitive loudspeakers. 

[Charles Calkins]

 
       Never gonna happen in my house!!!!
       STEREO FOREVER!!!!

                                                               Cheers
                                                             Charlie

[DWG]

Why not both? These are two different types of listening/viewing experiences.   I have a two-channel listening room and a multi-channel home theater.  The two-channel room has more expensive speakers and electronics.  The theater is for movies and 5.1 music.  5.1 music can really provide a unique perspective to the music (think Dark Side Of The Moon in surround).  That said my theater is built with more modest electronics and speakers.  It could be very expensive to build a multi-channel system with the highest end equipment.  So in my theater I trade off a bit of sound quality for the ability to present movies/music in 6+ channels. 

[Russell Dawkins]

It might be worth noting that the OP has not revisited the thread since posting.
Also, in reviewing the question, I find the wording confusing and am not very clear about what is being asked.

[Bullitt5094]

We're still in the experimental stages of multi-channel.  Just look at the all the variations and formats out there.  If done "right" multi-channel is superior to stereo, but that's a big "if".  First the multi-channel design needs to be standardized, next the mixing is really complex and can easily be messed up, then you need the right speaker setup/designs for whatever that future format will be, and finally you need a big enough room to allow you and your's to sit in the middle away from all those speakers.  Don't see the masses going for junking up their limited living spaces with hordes of loudspeakers. 

Had a CD4 set-up in the 70s including an Akai 4-channel reel-reel. We know how long that didn't last. For music playback, surround hasn't caught up yet. Don't really believe it ever will. More likely we'll plug directly into our aural nervous system before that happens.
Now in the realm of movies, surround is certainly the way to go.