Why is 2 Channel better than multi-channel?

Gboren: I think you don't understand the *possibilities* of 5.1. I've heard gimmicky recordings that put me in the middle of a barbershop quartet, and they sounded, well, gimmicky. What good multichannel should do is recreate the reverberant energy of a concert space. What should come from your surround speakers isn't instruments, but the reflections from the walls of the concert hall or whatever. Done right, it should sound like you're sitting in the middle of the hall, not in the middle of the orchestra. But not every recording engineer is equally adept at doing that. (Note the vast understatement there.)

Bomarc:
Fair enough. I fully agree about the possibilities of multichannel. But it has always been my impression that audio engineers have been putting their energy into creating more realistic explosions. When these same Terminator junkies master a music concert, they tend to use the same sensibility: put the listener in the middle of it.

I would love to hear multichannel music that is properly mastered. But where is it? How many titles are out there? And given the increased cost of setting up a multichannel system, will there ever be enough demand for audiophile multichannel to drive a market?

What about from a signaling perspective? Is analog signals that much better than digital signals that have been processed then converted back to analog and piped thru multi-channel? Are we talking about significant signal changes that are audible to the ears? Aren't information on the CD coded in digital form in the first place?

Most of us have speakers in the front that cost 4 to 5 times the amount of the ones in the back.

Darryl, the speakers in the rear of my HT system are identical to my mains from 200 Hz on up. Below that, the mains have dual 12's in each cabinet and the rears make use of dual 10's in each cabinet. They all use a single 8" lower midrange driver, a dome upper mid and dome tweeter above that. My center uses identical dome mids and tweeters to those found on the mains and surrounds with two of the identical 8's going down to their natural roll-offs in the 30 - 40 Hz range. I also have two subs, each housing identical 12" drivers to what are used in the mains. For power, i have 1200 wpc driving the mains and 800 wpc driving the center, surrounds and two subs. Those are all factory ratings and from the testing that i've seen, somewhat conservative numbers.

As it is, i'm "fully equipped" to do "full range surround sound" in "audiophile fashion". Truth is, i have NO interest in music being reproduced in this fashion at this point in time. Truth is, most of the recording and production techniques are SO lacking that i think it would be more of a distraction than an improvement. They've been trying to get two channel reproduction dialed in for years and we still have drum sets that span the entire width of the stage, intstruments that wander from side to side at random, etc.... How much "better" do you think that they would be able to cope with a half dozen different channels to mix and pan between ???? Sean
>

PS... Supposedly, JJ's "Death Star" multi-channel recording process holds GREAT potential. He is one of the few audiophile scientists that tries to use both test equipment and his ears with common sense to improve upon what we currently have. Too bad he is retiring and the company is going to drop the project.