Why is 2 Channel better than multi-channel?


I hear that the music fidelity of a multi-channel AV Receiver/Integrated amp can never match the sounds produced by a 2 channel system. Can someone clearly explain why this is so?

I'm planning to upgrade my HT system to try and achieve the best of both worlds, I currently have a 3 channel amp driving my SL, SR, C and a 2 channel amp driving my L and R.
I have a Denon 3801 acting as my pre. Is there any Pre/Proc out there that can merge both worlds with out breaking my bank? Looking for recommendations on what my next logical steps should be? Thanks in advance.
springowl
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.
I dont think i can accept the position stated above that by the very nature of the multichannel configuration , imaging constraints are aleviated. This is certainly just my opinion but quite the opposite is what I have concluded.....sorry. What I am getting at is that the adding of more speakers and channels of music contaminates the imaging without the meticulous protocol of proper integration . That trial and error journey has created some serious late night hair pulling sessions but breakthroughs eventually evolve . I understand Slappys thinking in that with movie soundtracks that rely on sound effects, imaging problems are ameliorated with the addition of more speakers but I evaluate multichannel strictly on music coherency and once you are somewhat satisfied with your work there , movies sound excellent. I agree with him that 2 channel smokes mullti in all but a few demonstrations I have been a part of { including ces shows } and that itself illuminates the issue of the great difficulty we are facing in mulltichannel integration.
Brainwater...Try to listen to Tacet DVD-A D107..Mozart Flute Quartets. You can't match this sound with any 2 channel system. Don't judge multichannel by inappropriately or poorly mastered discs.