Devotion to 2Ch/MC?

I cannot imagine how 2channel can sound more natural in a good home system unless the multichannel version was done incompetently. (Of course, that certainly is possible.)

Kal

PS - I wrote my response before I read the whole string. I think I am 2nd'g Stehno's position.

Johnnyb53 raises some good points. I was thinking about multi-channel solely as delivering discrete audio signals from other than front L & R. Great for trippy type Pink Floyd stuff maybe ... I hadn't considered what surround might contribute relative to "hall ambience".

I think I still prefer 2 channel if only because I have a better chance of being able to afford and implement significant quality changes to my 2 channel system compared to a 5+ channel system.

I think one reason quadraphonic didn't catch on in the LP era in the early '70s is because LPs were already very musically satisfying and people weren't hankering for something more. The CD4/SQ format wars and extra hardware costs didn't help, either. LPs with the right cartridge could already fill the room with broadly dimensional sound.

In the digital age the opposite is true. Several things are missing from musical satisfaction in digital playback, and people are desperate to improve it--through cables, footers, pucks, racks...and more speakers and spatial cues (i.e., surround sound). One of the things that was missing in early digital and slow to make progress was imaging. I remember my first CD player (after years of listening to LPs) and I was shocked at how it sounded like threadbare music coming out of two separate speakers, whereas my LP rig threw a wide, deep, seamless soundstage.

Surround sound is one way to help fix that, since 2-channel analog playback--as much as I love it--won't be returning as the de facto standard.