Why is 2 Channel better than multi-channel?

Stupid comment - 2 channel is for anyone who uses it. Many people see no reason to introduce the gimmickry and complexity of multi-channel. It is very possible to ignore 5.1 or 7.1 or 11.1 or whatever else the marketeers are able to dream up for you to buy. That doesn't mean they are purists but simply tat they do not respond to every opportunity to buy something new. Maybe they are content or poor or busy elsewhere. Audiophools need to come to grips with the fact that too many of us treat this like a bleeping religion. It's just stuff.
2 channel is for music. Multi-channel is for sound effects.

Multichannel is for better music but I understand that others reject it for reasons of bulk, cost and prejudice.

The few times I've heard multichannel it never sounded right to me, although the systems may not have been all that good. Instruments and voices way off the stage and even behind me just sounded weird.

Kr4 - Are you suggesting that for a given amount of money you could put together a better 5.1 (or whatever) system than a 2-channel system for music only? I always assumed it would be much more expensive to get multichannel music to sound as good (more amps, more speakers, etc.).

No. I am acknowledging that decent MCH will take up more space and cost more than decent stereo. I was also saying that prejudice was the only other reason I can see. ;-)

Kal

Kal - Don't forget indifference. Most people could care less. They just want access. No qualitative thoughts ever cross their minds - except maybe brand name. That's where Bose comes in.