Why is 2 Channel better than multi-channel?

Anyone thinking about getting an SACD player..., do it! An SACD and decent SACD player does sound better than a Red Book CD and decent player.

In fact, there's quite a few SACDs that are two and three channel. You get to hear the highly regarded RCA Living Stereo SACDs the way the original records were recorded back in the 50's-early 60's.

They were all recorded in either 2 or 3 channel. If you have a center channel speaker that's equivalent to your front speakers, the three channel SACDs will sound fantastic. They actually used three microphones when recording, one for each side and one for the center.

I have both. A McIntosh-based 5.1 system in the living room with a blend of vintage mac (MX119 PA 4 ML1s MPI4 MQ101EQ 2 ML10s MQ102EQ MC2105 etc.) and newer mac (861 dvd 252 power amp). You can build EXCELLENT and affordable multi-channel by blending vintage and current technology.

The bedroom is 2-channel with first gereration McIntosh solid state MX112 Tuner Preamp MQ101EQ MC2100 2 ML1s). The best stereo image, definition, and separation I have EVER experienced. It sounds like tubes because it was ENGINEERED to sound like tubes. Pure and neutral.

I will always love the mac ML series. That is the first mac I was able to afford in 1971 (with MA6100) and I still have the original ML1s. I fell for them when I heard the Tank drum solo and Take A Pebble from ELP's first through them.

I appreciate both stereo and multi-channel for what they are. I set up the bedroom system because I missed pure 2-channel. Listen to Santana's third in stereo. Outstanding.

My point is ... trust your ears. 2-channel is ONLY better than multi-channel if YOU think it is better.

Peace

In my system, the two channel SACD has better sound quality (resolution, dynamic) than its multichannel.
It may be due to higher resolution encoding on the two channel layers.
However, we could not hear the difference on my friend's lower end systems.
I am using B&W 801N with Levinson; his system is Polk Audio with Pioneer Elite receiver.

Without all the technical knowledge that alot of the posters convey, I listen like it's real world. When you go to a concert of any kind, the stage is in front of you and instruments and vocals are projected to your seated location. As much as I would like to be sitting in the middle of what ever group is performing (5.1-7.1 surround) there is not enough room for all of us to sit there. So 2 channel with great sound engineering for stage presence of instruments and vocals gives me the most realistic sound imaging to the original performance.

Mostly Hi end audio multi or otherwise suffers from Environmental effects.. Fact is if you can get a 2 speaker system to work well in a single room environment, chances are adding speakers to that space from 3 other different points and angles in a room can in fact make it worse to a degree.

As stated above it can be done, but gets a lot more complex, especially for standard stereo recordings going thru multi channel processors. Bottom line it all starts, and ends with the room layout and acoustics. Sometimes just can't be done easily, and 2 channel imaging is easier to acheive period.

Many can argue what they want, but its not really all about "2 Channel gear" has been around longer, or has better hardware development, and or recordings due to cost factors... Its about the room and final setup that will cause most issues in 2 channel or multi. In the end no doubt people will find consitentley that 2 channel can work out better, but thats not to say a very well done multi channel can't compete, but yes it will normally cost much more, especially the room its in!