Print

Print


I think the main reason 2 channel audio prevails is the lack of flexibility of where you can sit to listen to surround sound.  Surround certainly prevails in movie theatres where the audience is in a position to appreciate it.  Also it's easier to design two channel set-ups.  My home system has basically the Mark Levinson system.  Each channel has two Quad electrostatic speakers mounted one on top of the other with a Decca Ribbon tweeter in between.  My woofer department departs from Mark Levinson by using an M. and K. powered subwoofer on each channel.  As you can imagine, this speaker system takes up most of half the room and if a surround system took up the rest, there's not much room left for me! 


     On Friday, April 24, 2015 3:59 PM, Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
   

 http://www.americastalkradionetwork.com/category/thd_rssfeed/

check out the theory espoused in the 4/19/15 show -- Steve Jobs and the iPod are what killed 
surround sound! I'd more "blame" the near-zero WAF (wife acceptance factor) for 5 or 7 speakers in 
the living room. Plus the total lack of interest among most TV viewers and music listeners. But, the 
move to earbuds and ultra-portable audio did reduce speaker-based listening in general.

-- Tom Fine

PS -- when you have the president of an audiophile group telling the host of an audio-oriented radio 
show that "no one" listens to surround-sound audio-only content anymore, I would say that bodes very 
badly for any long-term viability for already-niche SACD and Bluray audio formats.