Why is 2 Channel better than multi-channel?

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.

I have developed a hybrid of the two that, in my opinion, is better than either 2 channel or multi-channel. I have a 2 channel CD going through a 4-2 multi-channel stereo system. There is no multichannel processor to screw up the sound. The 2 channel music goes through two pair of identical speaker drivers (Klipsch Heritage)positioned at the front and back of the room powered by two identical ML stereo amplifiers. A pair of TacT W410 subwoofers are positioned in the corners to povide the deep bass. Three preamps are used so each speaker is controlled individually. The preamps are connected in series so all speakers can be controlled simultaneously by the first preamp. All preamps are passive so only resistors are used to control the volume. Placette preamps are used to to provide the cleanest sound with no added distortion. The back pair of speakers are raised to a level which is hardly noticeable, but provides a three dimensional sound that is out of this world.

The only reason 2 ch is better then 5.1 is becouse we (you at least) all live with missmatched speakers.
Have you noticed how in recording studios all 5 speakers are the same?!!!!!

Well actually there is one other problem. Most 5.1 mixes just plan stupid. When was the last time you sat front of the drum kit with the keyboard in the far right behind you and the jazz chorus coming out of ..humm...everywhere????

Izsssakmixer...You are absolutely right about having all speakers the same.

However, if you are part of a jazz jam session, or if you play in a classical string chamber group (eg: quartet), or even if you hear these in a small room without actually playing, you would be very familiar with the sound of different instruments all around you. Also there are so- called "Antiphonal" compositions that specifically call for two or more chiors or groups of instruments located apart from each other. There is a new SACD where E Power Biggs plays Bach fugues on the four organs in the cathedral of Freiburg, and the musical phrases are "answered" back and forth between organs in a most interesting way. Handel's "Water Music" works well in multichannel...imagine yourself floating down the river with barges of musicians floating along with you. (That's how Handel intended it to be performed). In Judy Collins recording of "Amazing Grace" Judy is front and center while the congregation is around and behind you. (This was not sold as a quadraphonic LP, but this particular song is the best example of matrix quad that I know of). At the end of the song, (on the LP more than the remastered CD) as the reverb dies away, you can hear people behind you putting their Hymn books back into the racks. As the saying goes "you are there". The cannons of the 1812 Overture are rarely located on stage. Etc...Etc..Etc.

Sure, multichannel recordings can be inappropriately mastered, but don't fall into the "I only have 2 ears" ridiculing of all multichannel discs that make serious use of the rear speakers.

There is definatly something to be said about having identical speakers. not just identical drivers, but identical units on all sides.

Sure you can get away with having some towers in the front, some dipole surrounds and a center all from the same manufacturer, but they STILL sound different.

Imaging this, if you have a 2 channel setup, and say you go with a KEF Q1 for the right channel and a KEF Q7 for the left channel. everybody will think you have gone mad.

Well the same applies to HT as well. however, its less noticable in HT because your FL FR do most if not all of the music in movies, and the rears are just for effects. (Primarily)

I refuse to buy a center channel and "Surrounds" for this reason. In fact, that is one of the reasons i sold my whole Deftech speaker set. 2 2004tls, 2 BP66s, and 1 procenter. and my THX certified Av reciever.

After hearing a HT setup with all identical speakers, and all identical channels i realized that going with different speakers even from the same manufacturer degrad3es the sound.

Now im running a DENON 3803, with 192/24b DACs on all 7 channels, 110W on all 7 channels, all identical amplifiers
I bought a set of KEF Q1's (incredible speaker, especially for the price), and now im saving up to buy another, then another. Im going to run all 7 channels of this with 1 type of speaker.

As far as integrated / sepeates is concerned, seperates are probably better, however, i just bought that denon 3803 and its sound quality blows my mind.
I dont think that seperates will always be better, i just think that AV recievers need to do some catching up.
Some day AV recievers will be able to produce as good sound as any pre / amp setup. It just needs more time and R&D

7 Channel stereo mode sounds pretty cool when all your speaks are the same

other than that, i dont believe 2 chan is superior to multichannel. I think multichannel is still a work in progress. I also think it is a matter of personal preference.

I like the versitility of a multichannel setup.