Why is 2 Channel better than multi-channel?

velocity,

Keep the debate civil. I am not criticizing your views. I'm simply stating another perspective. I'm sure that you have the best equipment but I'm not interested in knowing that. My opinions are mine alone and I'm not really out there trying to convince you or anybody for that matter. I'd rather settle and listen to a scintillating 2 channel pure stereo sound and when I finally become inattentive, I will turn on my BRYSTON 9B SST amp, just for some diversion.

I can't comment on multichannel, but I CAN say with absolute certainty that my two channel set-up plus sub-bass unit generates SPECTACULAR imaging, which I've already described at length in my review of the Intuitive Design Summits. Depth, width, and height are all there, and in SPADES. I have no desire for a multichannel system, although I've never really listened to one, unless that's what they have in the theaters. If that's what surround sound is supposed to be like, then I think it sounds insultingly artificial. But hey, maybe someone with a "better system" than mine can "bring...(me) up to speed."

Mdhoover,

Thank you for your cerebral commentary on the the topic of 2 channel stereo. Often, the purveyors of snake oil run out of justification and falsification and in the process develop a self promotion strategy that portrays them as better because they are bigger, stronger, etc. In this particular case, someone with a "better system" has now developed scholarly credentials to "bring us up to speed". In a quintessential sort of way, we, stereophiles, 2 channel traditionalist or whatever the moniker, should be greatful that in our midst someone with a "better system" will finally show us the way to listening bliss.

Landok,

Just like you, I have nothing against surround sound, home theater, etc. It's good for me to see differing points of view since I already KNOW what mine are. Condescending comments, however, detract from the quality of any discussion. That's probably a good reason why I myself shouldn't have gotten sarcastic above. I apologize for that.

Landok,

There is nothing uncivilized about my post, I was just stating a fact that my two channel system likely rivals or is better than yours.

ERGO;

My experience is equal to yours on what two channel can do, where we disagree is with the finer points of surround sound. So when I say no problem with the image, surround improves the musical experience I have a common basis from which to draw to relate to your experiences with the quality of two channel.

In your case you have not even begun to understand the basics of a surround system. You wouldn't know where to start to build one properly. Nor would you know how to go about determining if the equipment you wished to use would be adequate to the task.

Thus;

You do not own the equivalent surround system to those you are in discussion with, ie Me & ElDart. Which by all sense of good manners means you must concede to our opinion until you have in your opinion researched and gained greater experience in these matters. Eldartford and I are not discussing what we think, we are telling you what we KNOW. Too bad you have had some difficulty discerning the difference.

If you had made a statement that I did not have direct experience with but I had a doubt. Before I got passive aggressive I would check it out and have the politeness to withold my initial reaction until I could confirm or disprove your comment. Funny thing is, I would likely learn something.

Lastly. did you ever consider that the snake oil message here is two channel is good enough? Mdhoover pretty much says it all doesn't he?

"like lemmings packed into shiny metal boxes..."