Why is 2 Channel better than multi-channel?

Darrylhifi's comment "Because God gave us two ears. If he gave us 5 , then multichannel would be better" is:
1. Unoriginal
2. Indicative of ignorance of basic hearing mechanisms
3. A red herring of no significance and intended only to annoy.

Pick one.

Kal

Stereo is an illusion supported by our natural triangulation of our ears and the source. This provides location and certain cues (clues) as to the nature and characteristics of the sound source. Our eyes perform similarly to identify size, distance, color, etc. of visual counterparts. More info is not necessarily better. I find it confusing. But, then again, I have no use for absurd special effects in movies. If people leaping tall buildings in order to slap the face of an opponent is your cup of tea, I can see why you might enjoy 5 or 7 or 21 different channels of sound raining upon you from all directions.

To each their own.

Long ago I noted that children make most of their assessments and valuations on a quantitative basis. I'm sure the term gazillion was coined by a child.

As we mature and evolve, we tend to appreciate qualitative distinctions more, even to the point of disregard for quantity. Let's hope that is in your future.

06-06-11: Macrojack wrote:
Stereo is an illusion supported by our natural triangulation of our ears and the source. This provides location and certain cues (clues) as to the nature and characteristics of the sound source.

True but incomplete. Triangulation is only one part and a simplified one, at that.

Our eyes perform similarly to identify size, distance, color, etc. of visual counterparts.

Again, a grossly simplified analogy but, fwiw, you can hear what is behind you but you cannot see without turning your head.

If you don't like (or have never really experienced) good multichannel, fine. Specious arguments should be avoided.

Kal

"Again, a grossly simplified analogy but, fwiw, you can hear what is behind you but you cannot see without turning your head." - Kr4

In the spirit of taking things too far...

If someone turns a lamp on behind you can generally see the light that comes from it reflecting on things within your visual range. Just because you can't see the source doesn't mean that you can't see the light. In some ways the light from a lamp and the sound from a speaker are similar. Maybe that's why people get confused and use lamp cords on their speakers.

"If someone turns a lamp on behind you can generally see the light that comes from it reflecting on things within your visual range. Just because you can't see the source doesn't mean that you can't see the light. In some ways the light from a lamp and the sound from a speaker are similar. Maybe that's why people get confused and use lamp cords on their speakers."

One could list all the physical differences between light and sound as well as the physiological mechanisms that humans devote to each and/or both. However, just leave it that it you can heard sound from behind you without any boundary reflections but the same cannot be said for light. Besides, the analogy has no general value here.

Kal