Why is 2 Channel better than multi-channel?

Armyscout knows how to shout but not how to think. The beholders and the critics are one and the same. Some of the critics agree with him and some do not. Everybody has an opinion and everyone is correct in stating what they each think. Upper case utilization and assertive tone do nothing to diminish that FACT.

To me this boils down to a value decision. I put greater value in quality - others seem to value quantity (more is better). Both are valid but us quality proponents get more snob points. I may change my position when they get to 21.1 channel and 2 to 200Khz frequency response however.

Cine 100, I was distinguishing between multichannel for music and multichannel for home theater. Without doubt, MCH HT is the volume mover for dealers these days and those that still sell a bit of audio tend to sell stereo.

What is the issue for me is that nearly no dealers set up, promote or, even, acknowledge MCH for music and that continues to support the archaic attitude that music is ONLY two channel. Live music is performed in real spaces and the proper reproduction of the entire event is logically and subjectively better with multichannel. There are, also, books and papers on the topic. Unfortunately, there is nowhere I could direct anyone to hear this because dealers are of no help.

Armyscout 41 wrote: "For movies, multi channel is superior, for music, two channel is superior, CASE IS CLOSED!"

I'll bet you hate broccoli, too. This is a classic example of preference stated as fact. Papers and listening tests contradict this absolutist statement.

Kal

It think the absolute sound quality of a two channel system easily exceeds any surround system (assuming similar dollars spent) that I've heard, but when it comes to the home theater realm, the multi channel provides an experience that simply isn't the same with only two channels.

This may also apply to multi channel recording of live events, but it seems that this is another example where there is an element of experience that may trump absolute sound quality for some.

I've never heard an excellent two channel recording played on an quality system and left thinking something was missing. I've also never heard a multi-channel music recording that really impressed me, but I'm sure there are exceptions that would knock my socks off.

I guess I placed my vote when I purchsased an SACD player that doesn't do mutli-channel.

The notion that 2 channel is inherently better for music reproduction is ludicrous. A well recorded discrete 5.1 mix of the same content sound far better than the same material mixed in stereo. This is true even when you do the comparison on similarly priced MCH and 2 channel systems (in other words, you don't even need five identical speakers and amps to achieve this result). I have 50K worth of mains speaker, cable and poweramp, and a relatively modest 10K center, sub and surrounds (speakers + amps). In my setup MCH completely blows 2 channel out of the water. If I took this 10K and applied it towards an upgrade of my 2 channel system I would get a marginal improvement. I can only imagine how good MCH would sound if my center and surrounds were of the same caliber as my mains.

The reason no one is bothering with MCH music is pure and simple the lack of content, wiht the exception of classical.

I'm not sure why people are being so intransigent about this - any subjective scenario of this nature is neither right nor wrong. I know Robert Harley is a well known fan of multi-channel music but I hate it. Having music coming at me from all angles is as unnatural an experience as I can imagine. I am lucky to be able to have separate systems for audio and TV/movies. The latter is never used for 2-channel and I find stereo TV unwatchable nowadays, as the sound now sounds flat. That said, my surround system is a significant number of steps down in quality compared to my main rig. 2 for music and multi for TV but that's just me.