Why is 2 Channel better than multi-channel?

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.

First I wonder how many of the 2 channel supporters have listened to well recorded multi channel on a well set up high resolution surround system. Those of you old enough may recall the same debates around moving from mono to stereo- not quite a vigorous, not that many people had experienced good sound. Try playing a well recorded surround recording (Diana Krall for one) on something like any good player, Anthem AV20, good amplification and good speakers properly set up. I think you'd be surprised. Don't forget there's a lot of poor quality stereo equipment out there and also good stuff that's poorly set up in bad room that would make most people wonder what all the fuss is about 2 channel. The possiblility of excellent sound in surround is there but just as it takes attention to many details to get stereo working well likewise with surround. Of course we'll still be waiting a while for most of the recording engineers to learn to record properly for it as well. There's lots of poor quality stereo recordings that sound bad on any system and the engineers haven't had 50 years experience with recording for surround like they have with stereo, but they will get there and just like the move from mono to stereo, there will be no looking back. Meanwhile there's no reason not to continue to enjoy good sound in stereo. There's also no reason not to persue the best in surround sound. But there's nothing inherint in the surround technology that will make it a lesser format than stereo- actually there is lots or reason to believe that it can overcome many of the room problems that stereo can't.