Why is 2 Channel better than multi-channel?

"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

Kr4 - Agreed. I started thinking about a bunch of different things while typing my tongue in cheek reply. It's difficult to find an analogy that applies across the board.

Armyscout41 - "very disturbed by the BIAS opinions of the 2 channel ONLY crowd. the facts are, would you use a TANK for a drag race? Woud use a porsche in a combat zone? Multichannel was intended for MOVIE soundtracks and VIDEO concerts. To most of us, we would prefer the multi channel approach when using it on it's proper context. Those who claim they'd rather use 2 channel for surround sound? give me a break, it defeats the purpose and sounds like garbage to those of us who like watching home theater. 2 channel designs is strictly MUSIC to recapture a live performance. TWO different setups for 2 different purposes. I DON'T AND WILL NEVER AGREE with the BIASES of the 2 channel crowd. You are comparing apples to oranges. For movies, multi channel is superior, for music, two channel is superior, CASE IS CLOSED! but the truth is SOUND is in the EAR of the beholder not the CRITICS! "

Aren't movie soundtracks and video recorded concerts...music? A recording of a live performance, right? So we agree, MCH is better for these. But wait...you then say 2CH is designed strictly for music...pardon me...live reproduction of music. Wait, let me get this right; is superior. So which is it? You're words not mine.

The beauty of MCH is it does both better than 2CH, music and movies. No need to rely on subjectivity...which is really the holy grail of 2CH purists (identity), MCH has test results to prove it. Something 2CH guys run from. We use our ears to enjoy the music, not validate our existence.

KR4 - I commend you for keeping at it. Better you than me.