Why is 2 Channel better than multi-channel?

I hear that the music fidelity of a multi-channel AV Receiver/Integrated amp can never match the sounds produced by a 2 channel system. Can someone clearly explain why this is so?

I'm planning to upgrade my HT system to try and achieve the best of both worlds, I currently have a 3 channel amp driving my SL, SR, C and a 2 channel amp driving my L and R.
I have a Denon 3801 acting as my pre. Is there any Pre/Proc out there that can merge both worlds with out breaking my bank? Looking for recommendations on what my next logical steps should be? Thanks in advance.
My tuner is FM only and I go to bed at 9:00 P.M. so I can't help you out.

Someone put you up to snide asides about your President. I was just guessing who it might have been that so inspired you.

I think Obama likes music more than any President in recent memory.
Bush and company went after The Dixie Chicks for simply disagreeing with a stupid decision in public. Freedom of speech?
Macrojack... I know nothing about AM radio or late night comedians. You seem to be up on this subject, so please explain. :-)
I'm not a fan of surround, although I think it can be pretty great. Discussions pitting the merits and flaws of each against the other often distills into the "authentic experience" debate. Macrojack hit the nail on the head: it's all self-deception, whatever allows us into the most enjoyable listening experience. The immersion of surround is pretty cool, and so is a wave brought on by a wall of sound, and so is the intimacy of bookshelves in a small room, and then there's the cool thing that planars do, etc.

For myself, just like when I experience live music, I simply want to experience the best (for lack of a better word) the space has to offer. That's a broad statement, and it suggests a broad range of possible experience. Each listening session can be so different. Perhaps this is less so for others--for some, there seems to be a very specific "place" they desire to be, and they painstakingly choose each bit of media and equipment to take them there. I can't disparage these lifelong seekers, as so many of them seem to be the ones we ask when we need advice. ;) I enjoy music and the stuff music comes from. I wouldn't want my equipment to "disappear" anymore than I'd want the musicians to disappear.

But I like two-channel better, even though I clearly believe that anything can be amazing. I think I narrowed in on why. It comes back to the same thing so many say. Whether it's the live musicians or hi-fi, I prefer a stage. I want the stuff producing the music to perform. I can sit up or slouch--a stage induces these and many other types of involvement. With surround, I feel that my range of possible experience is somewhat more limited, as it always feels to me like I should just sink into a bing-bag and take it in. The only time I've felt that surround is more correct is when listening to loud club music.

Is surround more akin to the headphone experience?
Poprhetor asked: Is surround more akin to the headphone experience?

Oh no! Headphones implode the soundstage imaging of standard stereo recordings by collapsing it into the space between the ears. From my perspective, headphone listening is on the opposite (and less satisfying) end of the spectrum from good multichannel with good stereo in the middle.

Good multichannel attempts to preserve the spatial representation of the original venue. This distinguishes it both from crude surround synthesis and from irresponsibly improbable studio surround synthesis. Judging from most of the posts, the latter is a huge problem for pop/rock recordings which are created in a studio and not at a concert.

Because God gave us two ears. If he gave us 5 , then multichannel would be better.