Stereo sounds better than 5.1?

Three channel is great for music, but 5.1 is f#^%&#$ stupid.

Follow up:From thread author.
Let me explain further, I'm also saying I would rather listen to the stereo surround version extracted from 2 channel over just the regular stereo version. Notice I said, "If properly set up". The new surround versions out today can drastically improve upon "Normal stereo". I'm not trying to start any fights, just trying to spark some passionate dialog about listening to 2 ch. over 5.1 ch. I'll bet most people that have a high end processer will say the same thing, they listen to the stereo surround version over regular stereo everytime. Ears is right about the center channel, when I listen to a stereo version, I to will swear the center channel is on, thats called imaging and my system does that well, but add alittle to the surrounds and now you have an accurate sound stage, more natural sounding. That's the point here. More comments ?
Anyone agree ? For the Tireguy, I question your experience when you say an Adcom pre-amp is one of your favorite componets. You might as well say you like Bose speakers too. Lets keep it friendly now, I just said I question you experience.

Pardon me but I NEVER claimed to favor an adcom pre-amp you might want to get your facts straight before you start spreading rumors. I agree that a "good" multi channel set up is nice, I have seen and heard of abbey road studios I do not live in a cave. But 5 B&W Nautilus 801 and 5 Chord amps hardly seems reasonable to me but I guess I do not have the kind of money that you do. I would appreciate it if you would get your FACTS straight before you try to put me down, I do not have all of the anwers I just try to make educated decisions based on the FACTS in front of me and share the knowledge that I gather with those whom share the passion of HI-FI:>)Tim The Tire Guy

Interesting thread, but I can't buy into the premise that 5.1 sounds better than stereo. Perhaps it's because I'm use to listening to two speakers not 5.1. For me, I hear more image focus, detail and timbre correct resolution in stereo. The soundstage appears more balanced and the presentation is more musical and satisfying.

There is a lot to be said for the new home theater sound format. I'm sure it will eventually become the standard setup for some. The 5.1 format is dynamic and dazzling with movies and some musical source material. That's just fine by me but when I want to really hear the music two speakers is all I'm ever going to need. That's just what I like and what is "best" to me. Regards; -Jerie

For the cost of doing 5.1 right, you can do 2 channel way better. I prefer the stage to be in front of me, not surrounding me. Movies are another story, but for music my vote is for 2 channel. You tell Tireguy to keep it nice right after you qestion his ability to hear? Wasn't the Adcom 750 rated class A? You should write Stereophile and enlighten them to your all mighty knowledge. It is a pretty big blanket statement to say that anybody with any REAl audio experience will have to agree with you. I would say there are lots of folks here with plenty of experience. Maybe believe it or not beyond yours even that will disagree. It is the same as posting CD'S are the better than records, if you don't agree than you can't hear. It's just asking for a fight.