Vote

No, you are wasting your time, and ours, with this. There are not enough medias.

Multichannel systems are still like dogs walking on their hind legs. It Isn't that they do it real well, it's just amazing that they do it at all!

Multichannel is useful for accurately reproducing music performed by musicians who stand in a circle around the listeners. I haven't experienced that, but the plethora of products proves I'm naive. Multichannel is also useful for speaker and cable manufacturers and home installers. Unless I grow more ears, I guess I'll never be a multichannelophile.

Cover more surround sound music when more NEW surround sound music becomes available. But ... spare us (except to warn us) the DSD (or DVD-A), two channel or multichannel release of redbook CD stuff that has merely been ran through a converter. No fraudulent hi-rez for me, please.

You should do what you you want. I'm not interested.

At least the amplification and speaker side. The Pre-pro should probably be left to Ultimate AV. But there are many that use a system for both 2 channel and HT, and the they share the amp and speakers. So reveiws from a stereo or multi-channel SACD viewpoint would be beneficial.

This debate has been brewing ad nauseam. It's high time that people who enjoy music realize that different formats can coexist. While a given format might not be one's cup of tea, it might be the end-all and be-all for someone else. That's good. It's good for consumers, and it's certainly good for the manufacturers who keep the wheels of American commerce turning.

It was shocking that the review of the Esoteric DV-50 did not include a discussion of its multichannel capabilities.

If some multichannel stuff and some liberal political commentary will produce appeal to a wider audience and thereby keep a good magazine alive and well, I'm willing to pay the price.

I'm not interested in multichannel, or home theater, but I'd sure like to read more about computer formats—the industry, the technology, the possibilities. This is truly the future of all music media formats.

I would think that all of the pages that you've wasted on the dead-in-the-water DVD-A and SACD formats would make the answer obvious by now: let Kal piddle around, by all means, but realize that two-channel is what counts.

Personally, I would love to hear more about multichannel analog preamps.

Multichannal audio will probably always be a niche market. Perfect for a niche in Stereophile.

Multichannel should be covered only if it's restricted to audio-only. If the reviewer starts discussing video, publish the article in UAV.

Leave the multichannel/theatre stuff to your sister publication. I read Stereophile for one reason only: two-channel audio!

Over my dead body.

Multichannel music is very important to many. For me it has become an indespensible "option," particularlly for new music. I do not consider it a replacement for stereo or mono. In fact, I enjoy most older classical and jazz recordings in their original format. Multichannel is an excellent option, just as stereo was to mono. If the music is recorded specifically for multichannel, it can be very rewarding.

No, we need more reviews of products that cost more than my car. Keep the magazine wafer thin. Forget the regular music listener, narrow your focus even more. Cut down the music reviews to one CD a month. Lay off some writers. Stay in the 20th century. Keep serving those who'll be dead soon. Forget about a long-term strategy for your mag's success. Dig your grave now.

Any more and you would be a home theater rag.

There is only so much copy that you're prepared to publish each month and there is lots of two-channel equipment that is not covered. Leave the multichannel to another publication. That's why I get Ultimate AV.

Enough is enough

Multi channel audio only is as far as I feel Stereophile should go with it as yours and several others publications are out their for the video driven format to garner attention and I have always felt this magazine should concentrate mainly on STEREO-phile interest as in 2 channel first and fall off of the other!

I was under the impression that Stereophile already had a sister publication devoted to multichannel. If I were interested in multichannel, I would already be reading about it elsewhere.

Think of the prices for two channel hardware, multiply it by 5 and you know what you'll get. Based solely in terms of value and pricing of current products, such coverage will put my pocket just incredible out of reach for what's being covered nowadays in the magazine.

If that means cutting some other stuff (eg vinyl), then no thanks. Anyway, it's fine as it is.

This afternoon I am visiting a stereo store and will see if they have a surround music set up I have not heard one to date neither have I heard SACD or DVD A.

Just a little bit more. There still exists the five-mediocre-channels-for-the-price-of-two-good-ones situation for any real-world budget. Also, it's hard to set up surround sound in a room that has been optimized for two channels. However, people who are have to share a room for audio and home theater could benefit from more information about surround sound.

I feel that it is about right and reflective of the amount of media which is available (without crossing the line into A/V home theater). I wouldn't expand coverage until the market expands the production of media for this market. Personally, I sold all my home theater equipment to buy single-driver two-channel speakers and an SET amp only a year ago.

First, please stop selling both Stereophile and UltimateAV. Put the two together under one title. Second, please focus on multichannel hardware, not DVD Audio and SACDs.

Yes, why not!