Why is 2 Channel better than multi-channel?

We all have a pair of ears which has 48 auditory canals, looks like the industry is trying its best to reach the ultimate goal of offering 40.8 channel HT system, I will wait for that patiently. Until then, I will continue to use the 48 auditory canals in my ears to create the surround sound effect from the 2 ch system.

Viggen,

Definitive produces a full-range center speaker....
As does KEF. Cant remember the model numbers but there are full range "Center speakers" out there.

I think im going to skip the "Center speaker" all together and add full range identical to my fronts.

I personally like to keep all 7 speakers identical.

Quad,
Man, if they come out with a 40.8 system, im selling everything and will buy a bose accoustimass, then get myself brainwashed so i forget i was ever in this rotton hobby. :)

The holy grail is a cohesive soundfield with holisonic acoustical presentation that allows the listener the freedom to occupy that space without trying to suspend his disbelief that he is experiencing a mechanical event. We all are seeking that " you are there presence " that sitting before live musicians affords. After the mastering of the equiptment chain and learning the specifics of speaker placement we are left with the most compelling issue that is inescapable: the damn room and its effects on our work. The decades of slaving over just 2 speakers has been replaced by the near impossibility of integrating 4, 5 6 7 or god help us , more speakers in that same space. We have been so reluctant to utilize dsp for fear of corrupting the purity of our work that much r and d was lost . Tact came along and shut most of us up. Rives is taking the lead too and we all need their help as the equation expands . My audio listening prowess dramatically increased as i have spent countless hours working on my own multichannel system and I swear , my Aerial 20 t s sound just fine all by themselfs thank you but still I forge ahead seeking that grail myself. Maybe we just need something to occupy ourselfs as most of us here on this site are focused or obsessive already and it keeps us interested in our hobby. I neeed to wash my hands, again.

I think there is just less of a demand on the sonics of a multichannel setup, due to the nature of its existance, ands its natural ability to overcome lack of imaging or soundstage by adding speakers.

Instead of having two speakers running constantly creating a large soundstage and imaging etc etc, you have multiple channels. Why do you need imaging if the sound is coming from the proper direction?
I think the emphasis of High end theater is way too demanding, i think multichannel was designed so the average joe could have enveloping sound without all the needed speaker placement yada yadda. and i dont think multi channel was ever really intended for audiophiles, but more for the mass market?

sure, sacd and DVD-a are multichannel, but untill these came out, multi channel music was just logic processors attempting to overcome the shortcomins of bad accoustics and speaker placement, or to creat a "Wow gee" affect on consumers expectation of more is better

multichannel music probably woulda gone the way of the DODO if it wasnt for surround sound movies. However, its probably here to stay in some form or another because multichannel setups are becoming more and more common in households.

The multichannel cconcept is largly leaned twards movies, and it does not take nearly as precise speaker placement to get spectacular sound as it does with 2 channel.

If course, im not debating the fact that good equipment and well done placement with room treatments can make it sound better, however, i believe that the increase in sonics between a $1000 HT in a box and a $55,000 with good placement is far less significant than the difference in sonics between a $1000 stereo setup and a $55,000 stereo with proper placement and treatments.

Sometimes i feel like HT setup is just easier to obtain the great sound becuase you are dealing with sound effects, and have extra speakers to cover the shortcomings of imaging and soundstage,

Sometimes, i wonder weather or not HT was ever meant to be High End as 2channel was. Sometimes i dont think it was. if you look at the "how much does your system retail for" audiophiles have a trend of spending more on 2channel than HT. Sometimes i think comparing them is like apples to oranges.

its easy to get a HT to sound good. its harder to get a 2ch to sound good. Most good 2ch setups DO sound better than multichannel setups though.

just my humble opinion, no real research on this, just what i figure from noticing the sonic differences and main uses for stereo vs. multichannel.

Im just presenting some ideas that i have not really seen yet.

any thoughts?

Now, where the hell did i put that spell checker?

Most people have no idea how to go about setting up a good sounding multichannel music system, they also do not have the extra room it requires. As near as I can figure out from what I read on the internet, most people think Hometheater and multichannel music are the same thing, they are not and can never be to the audiophile. Forget the television, forget the baby center channel, forget the out of phase rear speaker types that are in many hometheaters, this setup is for movies and will never sound more than: FUN. As long as HT/MC music are grouped together in mind and system, two channel will get the audiophile nod as better.