Multi channel much better than stereo?

as a supplement to my 2-channel rig, (completely out of the 2-channel signal-path when not in use, & when it *is* in use), i have set-up in my system an audio-only surround-sound processor - the jvc xpa-1010 digital acoustic processor. this unit has in it 20 programs made from acoustically mapping 20 different venues - concert halls, theatres, clubs, churches, outdoor venues. basically, what was done was to point 4 microfones outwards toward the corners, from a centrally-located position in the venue being mapped. so, what's being played-back is the ambient hall info from the particular venue that was being mapped. there are a multitude of adyustments for reverb, delay, the size of the room the system is set-up in, etc. while initial set-up is time-consuming, once it's done, there's not much fiddling inwolwed, except to switch from one venue to another.

imo, this is the *only* effective type of surround set-up for music. everything else is theatrics, w/no meaningful *real* soundstage info. but, i must say, it is now rarely activated, since i've gotten an excellent tubed preamp into my system - plenty of soundstage/hall info yust running the two main channels! ;~) it is nice for some recordings, like live-recordings, & when recordings were made in a real venue, as opposed to a studio. it is also nice, sometimes, for some less-than optimal fm radio broadcasts.

one persons' opinion, doug s.

urban, yer idea of having two separate systems has too many wariables as presented, to be able to draw any conclusions.

1st of all, what exactly do ya mean by "multi-channel"? a h-t set-up is vastly different than one designed for audio, w/ambient-room info as the only program material used for the *other* channels. and, afaik, the audio unit i have is s.o.t.a. for that type of multi-channel audio-only processing, & it's now almost 10-year-old technology. like it or not, (& i happen *not* to like it), audio-surround has wirtually disappeared from the market-place - anyone know anything different? that said, i'm conwinced that multi-channel optimized for audio will absolutely crush multi-channel optimized for h-t, even tho the h-t processing technology is current technology. i'm talking of listening to *music*, of course.

whether or not audio-designed multi-channel will sound better than 2-channel is wery dependent on the music chosen, imho. for example, my re-mastered winyl copy of little feat's live *waitin' for columbus* sounds great w/my surround-processor engaged, set to "outdoor pawillion". but, patricia barbour's *cafe blue* sounds much better w/the processing off then when set to "yazz club" on the processor. to try & cross-compare, little feat sounds better w/*no* processing than patricia barbour sounds *with* processing. then again, my room, at ~25x38, is *great* for 2-channel; smaller rooms wood prolly benefit more from multi-channel ambient processing...

bottom line for me - if i had to choose between *always* using my processor, or *never* using it, it'd yust have to go away! ;~) as far as h-t surround goes, well, it's not an issue for me, as i don't like watching movies. but there's *no way* i'd *ever* run 2-channel audio thru a multi-channel h-t set-up - i'd either have 2 separate systems, or run my h-t processor thru a bypass loop now so commonly awailable on top-line 2-channel preamps. (gee, if audio is so good thru multi-channel h-t, i wonder why these by-pass loops are becoming so popular on all these audiophile preamps?!?) ;~)

regards, doug