At What Price Point is Surround Better than Stereo?

[Kal Rubinson]

Originally Posted by 2fastdriving

I guess it depends on the goal. If you want to watch the expendables movies and shake the house, you can do it pretty cheaply and feel good about the setup. If you want to feel like Ella Fitzgerald is standing in your living room, it'll cost you more.

There's no question that you can improve the performance of the system by spending more on stereo or on surround but the point of the discussion is based on the presumption that surround is superior but more expensive. Thus, we are trying to evaluate at what level of expenditure does surround become an overall better investment than stereo. AFAIK, there is no Ella in multichannel, so that reference is not relevant.

[2fastdriving]

Originally Posted by Kal Rubinson

There's no question that you can improve the performance of the system by spending more on stereo or on surround but the point of the discussion is based on the presumption that surround is superior but more expensive. Thus, we are trying to evaluate at what level of expenditure does surround become an overall better investment than stereo. AFAIK, there is no Ella in multichannel, so that reference is not relevant.

Yeah ok, I'm going to have to sit this one out, I have a home theater but no interest in surround music. Sorry for the distraction.

[SuperD]

I used to get more enjoyment from 5.1 SACD & DVD Audio when I had an AVR and entry level B&W 704s. A few upgrades later, I much prefer stereo listening. To my ears and brain, stereo just sounds more natural but it cost me a lot more to get here.