Why is 2 Channel better than multi-channel?

Hey guys- Except for one response above, it seems that everyone missed the point of Springowl's question. He's currently using his HT receiver as a pre-amp only, driving 2 and 3 channel amplifiers (separates). His question, I believe, is "can he purchase a HT receiver that will give him as good, or better sound that his current hybrid setup", or should he upgrade to a complete separates setup (high-end preamp with fixed gain HT bypass input, HT receiver for decoding multi-channel mixes, plus separates for amplification be it one, two, three or more channels in the amplifier.

Or, ultrahigh end multi-channel processor (Proceed, Meridian, etc.) instead of the HT receiver and high-end preamp combo. That is his question IMHO.

I don't know the correct answer but I'm about to look at the Proceed AVP-2 processor- preamp combo, which should be upgradeable, in the near future, to digitally decode SACD now that the fire-wire transfer scheme has been agreed to.

@ channel is better than multichannel because multichannel has a stronger need for a sweetspot for listening. 2 channel sounds better than multichannel when you are cleaning the rumpus room or working on stuff.

As far as 2 channel better than Multichannel HT i dont believe that it can really be said.
Music and theater are apples and oranges, they both feed ya, but they are different.
Besides, for 7,000 you can get a better sounding HT than your local 9 dollar-a-ticket cineplex.

Most of us only have 2 ears.

Can't say which sounds better, depends on the recording I guess. I don't have a whole lot of multichannel recordings yet, but of the ones I do have, some are much better in multichannel and some are much better as two channel in my system. I think my opinion may be a wait and see type of thing. I know some people like old mono albums and say they should never be mixed to stereo, could be the same thing with two channel recordings. Rock music such as: Beck, Frankie goes to Hlooywood, Mike Oldfield, Pink Floyd, Alan Parsons, Moody Blues, Grateful Dead are some that I have that sound much better in multichannel. Lyle Lovett (Joshua Judges Ruth) is much better sounding in surround and so is Alison Krauss and Union Station Live. Norah Jones, Diana Krall, Natalie Cole and another Alison Krauss I have sound good in both and depending on mood and whats going on, I seem to play both ways. Lots of stuff I would like to hear in surround some day: Dead can dance, Michael Hedges, Brian Eno, Enya, Peter Gabriel, leo kotke, all the pink floyd stuff. I guess there may be no correct answer as to which sounds better or works better as it would be a matter of the type of music which may lend it's self to one or the other, or both even. It's a great time to be an audiophile.

Springowl, if you're still out there, you must have upgradded by now. It seems that your original question was about improving upon your av-receiver as a pre-pro. I have a similar set up and I have thought long and hard about how to make the most cost effective improvements. I have two differing approaches.
1. Buy a Classe SSP 30, it will improve everything, with one purchase, especially the 2 channel.
2. Get a good CD player with a volume control, and a digital input. This will bring greater 2 ch improvement and make the DVD player sound better on PCM sources, like concert videos.
My plan is to go for #2, I want to make my stereo sound the best that I can afford, with the home theater side making small gains. I love the way the HT sounds now anyway!
I will also be upgrading my main amp very soon, I would like to get that and the CD player together. My choice for the amp will be the Spectron and probably Resolution Audio CD55 for the source. I will still consider the Classe as an addition, but not this year.