Why is 2 Channel better than multi-channel?

I'm a little late to the game here but could not resists weighing in. There is no doubt in my mind that a very good recording which is available in a 5.1 and 2.0 mix, is more enjoyable in 5.1 at any systems pricepoint over say 5K (or even a bit lower). For example, the Nordic 2L recordings come in 5.1 96/24 and 2.0 192/24 and the MCH mix wins hands down on any half decent surround system.

Think of it like this. You have say 20K invested in a good 2 channels system, and have 10K more to spend. Your options are upgrading your 20K 2 channels system to a 30K 2 channels system, or spend 10K on a center channel, pair of surrounds, 3 channel poweramp and active sub. Your 2.0 channel upgrade is deep into diminishing returns territory, while your 2.0 to 5.1 upgrade is a huge net system improvement. The issue is that because outside of the classical reportoire there are so few good native 5.1 mixed recordings available, many people in the audio crowd would understandable opt for the 2 channel upgrade anyway. However, this is not because a 2 channel 30K system is better than a 30K 2 channel system. It is because there is no content to enjoy the superior 5.1 system. Obviously for the movie crowd the equation is different.

So in my opinion you cannot discuss the relative merits of 2.0 and 5.1 without considering availability of content. Interestingly, the way audio is evolving it looks like legacy MCH high rez (i.e. SACD and DVD-A) is dead, future MCH high rez (i.e. Blu Ray music) is not really going anywhere, and 2 channel high rez may well have a future through 96/24 and 192/24 downloads. I personally love MCH high rez audio and this state of affairs frustrates me no end, but what can you do other than spinning your favorite MCH recordings over and over again....

This thread has progressed haltingly through nearly nine years of inconclusive debate. During that time much has changed in the world around us and in our narrow area of special emphasis.

My system has changed a lot since I first rendered an opinion on this subject and it is probable that the rest of us can say the same.

At present I have a two channel system comprised of big wooden horns and 15 inch woofers. The frequency response is narrow - (40 Hz. to 14Khz.) but the character and impact are very real and very impressive. I don't feel that I am missing anything.
To me the whole surround thing is an unnecessary gimmick, like 3-D.

As a dealer that almost uniquely, currently and continuously designs and sells (2) channel systems, I had to contribute to this forum. I have a lengthy list of clients that bought a (2) channel system from me that can attest to the superior attributes of their systems over a similarly priced multi-channel system. The most obvious advantage is buying such higher quality with a given budget, when buying such fewer items. The 2nd advantage is having fewer speakers. More, cheaper speakers do not sound better. When (2) speakers are set up properly in a well matched system, they merely represent the boundaries of a stage and then disappear. When your system sounds like a band or an instrument being struck in front of you, or like you are part of the scene in the movie, instead of sounding like a stereo (or speakers), you quickly get the idea of why it is so much better. I may not have read every response to this question and don't mean to repeat anything. It is just a question that I encounter and answer almost everyday. It's too bad that more dealers don't try to promote higher end (2) channel systems as an alternative to surround sound. Although, the current "norm" of multi-channel design provides a niche for me!

It's too bad that more dealers don't try to promote higher end (2) channel systems as an alternative to surround sound. Although, the current "norm" of multi-channel design provides a niche for me!

Really? I have rarely ever found a high-end dealer with any multichannel music systems set up for demo. HT, yes, but, otherwise, everything is stereo. Are you different?

Kr4,
Are you saying that you don't beleive that multi channel systems as for popularity dwarf the sale of (2) channel systems? Do you not believe that electronics dealers (especially the ones that most people frequent), mainly promote multi channel systems? If I am different, it is because I promote and sell the best sound quality available per dollar invested. I do that by designing (2) channel systems (preferably tube based). Most of the "dealers" that I frequent in my admittedly small rural state, primarily sell multi-channel systems. There displays have Center channel speakers, Effect channel speakers, powered woofers, multi-channel electronics, etc.. My clients NEVER report being previously exposed to or informed about this way of putting together an AV system and are always surprised when I suggest it. Also, my customers are often unaware of "high-end" dealerships (or have a negative impression of them but that could be another forum). I preach the advantages of high end (2) channel systems to people who know nothing about electronics. Elderly women and men, technically intimidated people who happen to have a love affair with Music and Cinema. I see (2) channel audio as a fringe in the overall market place. That doesn't mean that it is not better. I think that it means that consumers are less informed about the possibilities that are out there. I obviously realize that there are numerous high end audio specialists around that also share my enthusiasm for (2) channel & I am probably not much different than those professionals. Ultimately, if my client knows what is available and can determine with greater proficiency what is "good enough" for themselves, then they can buy what is best. Not knowing and or comparing is to proceed blindly.