Quote:

Ironically enough, "stereo" is defined as two or more speakers, not just two, though "stereo" has garnered a colloquial meaning of two channel over the years.

From the Webster New World Dictionary of the American Language:

binaural, adj. designating or of sound reproduction or transmission in which two sources of sound are used to give a STEREOPHONIC effect

So 5.1 and 7.1 systems are stereo? I don't think so, according to common usage. Stereo, the root of stereoscopic and stereophonic means "from two perspectives" or "three-dimensional". In medicine, stereo as the root of words such as stereotropism means "solid" from the Greek stereos. What all this has to do with finding this guy a $1000 setup, I don't know?

Ramblings:

I would tend to think that any 5.1 or more is Stereo Plus. To have a center channel speaker do what true Stereo Setups do seems not the problem. We might have lived with 4.1 and no center channel.

I am thinking more along the lines in the future to doing 3 channel, more for MC SACD than anything else. Whether this is an improvement really depends upon my CC speaker and that amp and how I control it. I have enjoyed this with my Triangle Cometes and the Sexton Center channel, but I cannot say if it is a improvement over 2 channel SACD. Just different. It does allow some manipulation of the center image I cannot really do in just 2-channel set ups.

I have heard some enjoyable Dolby Digital and DTS sound, but it is surely processed and I do much prefer stereo when it comes to music. The SACD experience I really like in MC, but I am not that interested in music behind me.

I do think that DR. Kal is right that it makes more sense to have those front speakers the same. This is not an inexpensive thing to do in high-end audio with 3 Class A speakers and an amp.

Quote:
From the Webster New World Dictionary of the American Language:

binaural, adj. designating or of sound reproduction or transmission in which two sources of sound are used to give a STEREOPHONIC effect

Of course, any source that equates stereo with binaural is not a reliable reference.

Kal

Actually is it Alan Blumlein that we need to credit. He was an amazing man.

He invented the moving-coil microphone (think moving-coil phone cartridge but at the extreme other end of things).

His 1931 British patent (#394,325) "Improvements In and Relating to Sound-Transmissions, Sound-Recording and Sound-Reproducing Systems

I was hoping you'd object.

I do object to what I see as a misuse of the term "stereo" but, rather than fight common usage, I prefer to avoid confusion in my attempts to convince "stereo" fans of the advantages of using multiple channels.

Kal

You've got a point; he didn't call it stereo.

Also, his patent refers to "a plurality of microphone elements and reproduced by a plurality of loud speakers" of two or more.

Isn't JGH an advocate for multi-channel as well?

Isn't this more along the lines of:

Robinson Cano is a baseball player.
Alex Rodriguez is a baseball player.

They are both baseball players (stereo), but one delivers MORE (ARod). They both meet the basic criteria.

Haven't we all thought that Stereo was anything above mono? It is MC.

I am not an academic so maybe I don't get it!