Why is 2 Channel better than multi-channel?

It all depends upon the room and your listening position. In just about any shaped room you can adjust your system for an optimum spot. A properly configured 2ch system can create a lifelike 3d image but only in an area between the front two speakers. This is great, if the rooms sweet spot can accomidate the audience. When it comes to watching a movie with the fam, your talking a big room, with probably more then one couch. This is why muti-channel setups are so popular with movies. It sucks to be the guy sitting next to the big left speaker in a 2ch setup b/c all they are going to hear is that one channel. A center channel allows the sound to be pinned to the center, no matter how far to the side you sit. You probably have noticed this at the movies. The screen is pourous and there are huge speakers behind it. The side and surround speakers are mostly there for effect and don't carry nearly as much information. Another advantage of a muti channel setup is that you can adjust speaker placement/delay/volume to account for an odd shaped room, making it much less 'sweet spotty'. My listening room is L shaped and i like the envelopement of a 5ch setup even when listening to a 2ch source (i use a 5ch stereo effect). However, the added effect is much less noticeble in the sweetspot of my room. My advice, if you are an audio junkie and tend to listen to music alone or if you have a nice rectagular or squareish room, save your cash and get a 2ch rig. However, for a movie buff with an odd room, the added cost and hastle of have multiple speakers outweighs the benefits of a 2ch system, even if the quality of components is better in the 2ch rig. As for multichannel audio, i'm not sold on their use surround effects. Many of the recordings seem gimmickie and if they do sound better its pobabably b/c they use high quality samples. The recording industry still can't decide on a single format, and i don't see it catching on antime soon.

Excellent post, Perkadin. You've wrapped up this thread.

If you read my Bose 901 thread, you'll see that's what I proposed with creating a makeshift "spatializer" for the Bose 901's I was given. By directing most of the sound towards the center a "virtual" center channel would be created with a 2 channel system. Then I would not have to worry about Pro Logic, Dolby Digital, DTS, 5.1, 7.1, 10.2, etc.

All of the information that you need for multi-channel stereo can be captured in a two channel recording. The only advantage of multi-channel recordings is to create a spacious feeling. This can be done now artificially with surround sound processors. It's true that ten years ago surround sound processors that tried to create a live spacious feeling for stereo recordings were horrible at best. Today it's a different story. For a mere $10,000 you can buy a state of the art Lexicon surround sound processor
that will create that you-are-there feeling from two channel recordings, just as multi-channel recordings plan on doing in the future. OK, OK, $10,000 is a bit too expensive, but the price of these processors will drop in time. Remember, the price of a $10,000 plasma tv one year ago was $20,000. I'm placing my bet on surround sound processors for the future, not multi-channel recordings.

Until then, I'm very happy with my six speaker system using two channel recordings without a processor. Two stereo speakers in the center, two stereo speakers in front corners, and two stereo speakers in the rear create a wonderful three dimensional sound for me. The two pair of speakers in front provides a much more life-like image than one pair of speakers 60 degrees apart. This is a tweak that works for me.

No, a great deal of information is lost - irretrievably - when you mix down to two channels. True multichannel recordings have the ability to capture much more, and preserve more of the original ambience.

Artificially derived channels may very well sound good, but it's not the original.

See "Stereo Or Home Theatre" under the "Miscellaneous Audio" threads.