Why is 2 Channel better than multi-channel?

Surely, Macrojack, none of those people are among us!! Indifference is rarely apparent here. That leaves the other possibilities. ;-)

Kal

"08-10-10: Kr4
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"

I guess I don't follow how MCH is better. If you compare 2 similarly priced systems and the 2CH sounds better...

So I guess my answer to the OP would be that 2CH is better because it sounds better. "At a given pricepoint" is always understood.

"At a pricepoint" is not universally understood. If you want (it) to be understood, you must say so.

In addition, even at a pricepoint, the choice might be influenced by the particular pricepoint. For a $2K system, I would certainly agree that a 2CH system would sound and, therefore, be better. For a $200K system, the situation is debatable. The advantages of MCH will, imho, will be more enjoyable compared to a $100K 2CH system and, also, more enjoyable than any incremental improvements you might make to the 2CH system for an additional $100K.

Is that a real-world analogy? For some, it is. OTOH, we are speaking of generalities here.

Kal

There is no reason why you can't enjoy both. It does take a substantial investment into multichannel to have a system that does both very well.

I have been struggling with this myself and have decided after listening to a limited number of SACD recordings that I am going to convert back to 2 channel and utilize my 5 channel amp to bi-amp my Linn Ninka's and call it a day. Most films I watch are just fine in 2 channel anyway