Why is 2 Channel better than multi-channel?

the recording industry is in turmoil just now. i'm sure many of you had stories in your local papers yesterday or this morning about the dismal state of affairs facing those for whom the grammy's are the equivalent of life's blood. worse, there's been nothing close to consensus regarding the successor to the "redbook" cd format. worst, the internet keeps coming up with new models for the dispersion of music that provides little or no profit for those who pay to produce and record it. on top of this, we now see a seemingly endless array of multi-channel versions of unproven and much-less-than-universally-accepted software (and associated hardware). amongst all this angst and absence of a weltanschauung regarding how the standard for recorded music might eventually evolve, the two-channel red-book cd and stereo lp have survived for decades. likewise, the systems and components of those systems that have been designed to reproduce two-channel sources have continued along a steady branch, leaving cut off from evolutionary advancement species including 8-track and digital cassettes like so many australopetihiceans. put simply, two-channel audio is where we've been, mostly comfortable, for enough time to develop an economic model whose rewards to its many participants are proven. nothing yet has replaced that model. so, if you feel comfortable being a beta tester for billionaires and those who aspire to such level of "success," go for the multitudinous multi-channel and multi-sensory formats. but as for me: i'll stick with the good ol' rock & roll on nothing more than two-channel sources. -cfb

When I listen to 2 channel audio, what I listen for is
realism ... Does a flugel horn sound like a flugelhorn,
a piano like a piano, etc, to my ears in a performing
environment. I have not heard a multi-channel audio
system which does anything to improve upon the basic
musical timbre of instruments. So what can multichannel
audio bring to the table for music listening? If the answer is a larger and more stable sound stage for more listeners without so much tweeking, without muddying
instrumental timbres then multichannel audio is for me.
If the cost of multichannel audio is loss of instrumental
realism in exchange for better imaging, or in exchange for
better reproduction of the performing environment - then
multichannel is not for me.

When I listen, I would like to be able to hear the
performance. If you can't hear the tight bass on a
Steinway grand, you have missed the majic of artist mated
with instrument. An artist doesn't just play an instrument
he/she responds to it. I want to hear the synergy.

I agree with most of the above reasons why "2 channel is better than multi-channel". I have a more basic reason as to why I (will always) prefer 2 channel: I like music as it is performed. Maybe I don't understand 5.1, but how many of us ever get to sit in the middle of the orchestra during a performance? Most concerts I've been to happen in front of the listener. If reality is the goal, 5.1 has nothing to add to 2 channel (except maybe a random cough generator?)

Have you ever noticed that it's often easier to place instruments by ear at home than it is in a concert hall? There's so much reverberant energy in a "real space" that a two-channel rig in a home environment can't begin to capture. (Neither can a 5-channel rig, in my opinion.) In fact, the clear spatial cues in a stereo recording partially make up for the fact that you don't have the visual cues you do in a concert hall. And yes, Hindemith, I suspect you'd give up some of those spatial cues (which help you distinguish instruments) in a multichannel application. What you get in return is something closer to the concert hall experience. So there is a trade-off there, and you have to decide what you want.

Is anyone out there using the PANPOT? Is it worth to use an extra amplifier and a second set of speakers to send the (L-R) signal?