Two-channel is inferior to multi-channel, no?

I agree with Jeffery. I have a NAD surround receiver driving two Image speakers in front with Bose 100s for surrounds. No sub right now, it blew. The NAD has two quality sound modes that distribute any signal to all speakers.

I don't know why, but everything sounds better multi-channel, even stereo recordings. Of course, I had to tweak the speaker levels to get it right. I listen to LPs with a Music Hall turntable, and even those sound better with multi-channel.

I agree W/Criderfive. Just had a guy I trust tell me that most DVD players and theater preamps do NOT fully convert all of the sound into 2-channel. So am I missing some audio???? Anyone else heard this?

BTW I am a 2-channel guy, 2.1 anyway. I was an Adcom/Klipsch rep in Japan. Bought my first surround sound in 1990. Thought it sounded like crap. Upgraded my surround speakers. Sold them for a $30 loss. I have set up a LOT of homes with surround. They ALL sound like crap, except for one seat. If I sat anywhere else, the speaker 12 inches from my left ear is way too loud and I can't even hear the one 10 feet from my right ear.

My experience is that 2 channel is better than home theater and here is why (I hope I can explain this in a way people understand).

When I have used a Surround sound processor I never used a center channel, because if you have the right speakers set up correctly they should project a huge sound stage and image so well that the sound fills the room and you have a sense of some depth, however when I used a center channel, soundtracks are usually mixed so most of the info comes from the center, and even if I used two speakers there is no stereo center only mono. So bottom line is that the sound stage always lacks when I used a processor.

Also I have two large full size main speakers, but most soundtracks are not mixed to take advantage of two large side channels. Most info happens in the center channel. So my main speakers never get used to their full potential. Also the processors I have used always seem to take info away from my speakers and send it to the sub. I used full range speakers on all channels of my previous home theater but the processor would never let them sing like they do in plain stereo. I did A B comparisons and in processor mode the speakers always sounded less than full range. Even if I manually went in and set up the menu, I figured it must have to do with the processing protocols.

The other problem is, once I had all things set up and sounding decent with one movie, all channels at the right level etc. I would pop in the next movie and would have to go back in and change the channel settings again because the surround is too soft or too loud, I guess just because of the way it was mixed.

Then there is the constant, or I should say inconsistent standard of audio. I had my system set up like a 7.1 system, side and rear surround plus mains. But when they release the new movie with HD sound it was only 5.1, then the next one is 7.1 but wait then they release the worst 6.1, 6.1? So when I watch Star Wars I only get one rear speaker working? I have to move the speaker to the center of the back wall just for this movie?

I got so tired of it, I love tubes and used Tube amps on all my channels in my home theater, I had 5 tube amps. I came across the Decware multi channel tube Pre-amp and was about to buy it, even tho it was not set up to do 7.1, anyway I had an injury that had me stuck in bed for two months, during this time I had a temporary system set up in my bedroom that was a simple two channel set-up. Wow, changed my life forever, as soon as I was well enough I sold all my home theater gear and invested In a very nice hi-end 2 channel system that blows away any home theater I know of personally. Of course, this is just my ears and my opinion.

I will never go back to Home Theater.

Processors I have used over the years include, Cary Cinema 11a, McIntosh MX-119, Outlaw Audio, Marantz, Kenwood, Rotel.

As a young child I started out as a two transistor radio listener. In my teens I discovered magazines and catalogs with pretty pictures and reviews. I was bound and determined to buy a stereo. I built my own speakers, bought a Pioneer SA-8100 integrated amp and a Kenwood receiver. Back then, Cassette players were the rage for recording. The medium of choice were vinyl LPs or 45s. Typically, the only sound arrangement available was two speaker stereo or mono. Having lived in the San Francisco Bay Area, I attended many concerts. No matter where I sat or stood the music came at me from the front.

I now have a nicer system than that original two transistor radio. I have a dedicated stereo system and a dedicated surround system. I can switch back and forth between the two while playing music.

Music, it comes at you from the front and sounds better.

Movies........sound effects. Things are happening around you, so you get sound around you.

For music, stick with two channel. If your speakers are positioned properly and you have good room acoustics, the sound stage should have you identifying the vocals and instruments left, center and right.

For the bling, bling of movies............surround is good;
Things blowing up, jets, cars, and other sound effects, fine. For music, not so fine.

Well put Frank!

[soap box on]
>>Things blowing up, jets, cars, and other sound effects, fine.

Sad to see (pun intended) that many of the current movies are just a cacophony of latest sound effects and done over a zillion times but now bigger, 3D and whatnot gizmos. The real story behind it gets lost and in the background (pun again intended).

Hollywood, wake up! Be creative, think more, copy less! To the movie goers that want to escape reality I say: try travel more/farther away.

[soap box off]