Why is 2 Channel better than multi-channel?

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.

In response to Sean's post, who is the 'they', as in 'they've been trying to get two channel reproduction dialed in for years'?
There are poor recording engineers and companies around, and there are pressing plants that contribute to serious degradation in output, but there is also a strong and fanatically devoted group of recording and mastering engineers who take their jobs with the utmost seriousness, as well as artistry.
Regarding techniques for multichannel audio, there are people currently working with ambisonics, ambiophonics, 7.1 and other non-5.1 multichannel miking approaches, as well as JJ's. Those working in these techniques are in academics and recording studios, as well as the pro audio engineering industry.
There is much to be learned in multichannel. But it is a serious mistake to think noone is working in it, and that noone thinks beyond profitability. The more challenging issues are how to produce and market audio-centric multichannel, and what speaker arrangements (as well as types) make sense.
I like Sean's earlier post in which he suggests that the 'commoner' may be the early adopter. True. Audiophiles may be so heavily vested in two channel, that a younger and more flexible, home theater-acclimated group becomes tomorrow's multichannel audiophiles.

My comments were based on what i purchase in terms of recorded music. In plain English, i think that the "average recording" is strictly "average" at best. Those that truly stand out are far and few between. As such, i think that until the bar can be raised on 2 channel recordings to the point that the "average" recording is quite good, we are doomed for an even longer "learning process" and "fiddling with controls and effects" in multi-channel. While this is not to say that multi-channel doesn't have potential, it is meant to say that the old "K.I.S.S." theory ( Keep It Simple, Stupid ) is still quite valid. Even in these days of "high tech" and "digital ready" gear and recordings. Sean
>

I have been into HT for a while and currently have a system that rocks with movies that are produced well. My whole set up cost me less than 7K. Certainly not audiophile class.
I recently started to listen to more music and was trying to figure out what the best solution would be ie. upgrade home theater system or a separate system for each. Here what I have learned so far.
For home theater fronts and rears are best using identical speakers. Center channel would probably work best with the same speaker again. This usually becomes a problem with regards to shielding.
If you were to set up a system like this for music as well as HT it would work fine if you use a processer with 5 channel stereo (a dsp mode).
Problem is the cost/space for extra speakers.
For audio two channel seems to be the way to go since there is very little that is produced to listen to in any other format and even less that is done well.
I just picked up a pair of Joseph Audio monitors to use for music and will probably purchase a new amp to run them. Hopefully this will make a big enough difference in quality to justify the cost of additional equipment.
So here's the end result of my research so far. Ht set up is for HT and if you want to listen to music, get the best pair of speakers and amp you can afford and stick to two channels. At least until there is something produced for multi-channel listening that's worth doing an all in one system.
Just a newbies opinion.

"Certainly not audiophile class."

What are you talking about, man? Proper component selection and matching is what makes a system "audiophile class". If you know what you're doing, get your electricity properly filtered and your speakers and room acoustics setup right, you'll have "audiophile class" without having to spend outrageous money.

More than a few people have expensive systems that are not musical. A total waste of resources, I would say.

Musicality is the name of the game.

Take it from one of the kings of bargains...