Why is 2 Channel better than multi-channel?

Niacin, in a real world live performance, sound does come from all around you. That is what accounts for the differences in the sound of a performance in a small club, a concert hall, a gymnasium and an outdoor stadium. It is, also, those differences which can be reproduced by a good multichannel recording and reproduction system. Stereo cannot do this as its sounds (including whatever site ambience was captured in the recording) come only from the front. Any immersive feeling derived from such a stereo recording are due to the acoustics of the room in which one is listening and, both logically and subjectively, are different from the original acoustics.

I do not intend to be patronizing and you are certainly entitled to exercise/express your opinions but I do not believe you can support them on the basis of our scientific understanding of sound reproduction or perceptual mechanisms.

Kal

In my limited exposure to multichannel music, I have heard recordings in which the surrounds were used to effectively reproduce the ambience of the recording space. If the mix is done well, and the multichannel playback system is set up well (two difficult tasks), then multichannel recordings can enhance the experience that "you are there," by presenting ambience cues omnidirectionally, just as they were presented in the recording space.

On the other hand, I have also heard multichannel music recordings in which, half way through a track, a lone violin started screaming out of one of the surrounds. My head whipped around like a gunshot had gone off. This approach to multichannel music can be very unnatural, to use Niacin's word.

Like all technology, multichannel technology can be a blessing or a curse, depending on how it is used.

Bryon

Bryon, I agree. There are, also, terrible stereo recordings. Any technology can be misused or used tastelessly.

Kal

"a lone violin started screaming out of one of the surrounds" is unreal--- unless there really is a violin located there.

My apology to those who have heard me say this before but...
...the most effective multichannel music I have is TACET DVDAs of chamber music where the instruments are individually distributed to the five channels. For example: violin left, viola right, flute center, cello left surround, piano right surround. The effect is to put the musicians in your room as opposed to the usual approach of transporting you to some recording venue. And then there is antiphonal music, composed for two groups of musicians, one of which is usually behind the audience. The spatial effect is part of what the composer intended. Stereo is incapable of reproducing antiphonal music.

...the instruments are individually distributed to the five channels. For example: violin left, viola right, flute center, cello left surround, piano right surround.

Eldartford - This is the approach to multichannel music that I find unnatural, since I am not accustomed to hearing music from the middle of a chamber group. Having said that, I don't want to imply that other people should feel the way I do. It's a matter of preference, and in this case, I don't believe that one preference is more valid than the other.

The effect is to put the musicians in your room as opposed to the usual approach of transporting you to some recording venue.

I think you are right about this. So, whether you find this approach to multichannel music appealing depends largely on whether you prefer the illusion that "you are there" or the illusion that "they are here." That distinction was discussed at length in another thread.

Bryon