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

Multi-channel is ALWAYS better than 2-channel with well-recorded sources. These will become prevalent with time, since 5.1 home theater systems have out-sold 2-channel rigs by a wide margin for sometime, and digital is becoming cheaper and cheaper.

recently heard two systems, back to back with similar recordings on the same day. The first was a Vandersteen 7 / Audio Research / Basis (analog) 2-channel system playing 50's jazz. The second was at DTS which had an 11.2 system, using Vienna Acoustics monitors in a perfect circle away from the room boundaries, (think Stonehenge), Ayre amps, dcs DACs and high bit-rate digital program sources. There was NO comparison. The DTS set-up was far superior in every respect, and was probably the best sound reproduction I have ever heard.

2-channel analog audio had it's day, but that day has passed.

I agree that multiple- channel is harder to set-up, but Audyssey and other digital EQ software solutions are making this less of a problem.

The simple truth of home audio is that the room is the most important component, whether 2, 3, 5 or 7 channel. If you don't get the room right, no matter how much money you spend on everything else, you limit the ability of your system to recreate the artist's intended acoustic 3-space. In my opinion, that 3-space is the whole point. If you can't recreate it, then monophonic reproduction is as valid as anything else you may try, and costs a lot less.

One day last year I had the opportunity to hear a better 2- channel setup than most if you could dream of, and DTS's 11.2 surround studio setup in SoCal back-to-back using the same source material. The 2-channel system was at Randy's Optimal Enchantment in Santa Monica and included Vandersteen 7's, Audio Research electronics, the top of the line Basis turntable with an Air Tight PC-1 Supreme, and a DCS-based digital front end. It sounded glorious. (Randy, BTW, is a gentlemen, a scholar, and a great host).

The DTS system was all digital using proprietary DCS hardware and software with a Macintosh-based source and GUI, 11 Vienna Acoustics speakers of various sizes, two huge Vienna Acoustics subwoofers, and all driven by Ayre Acoustics amplification. This setup was in a huge room and had a mastering console in the middle of a speaker array that looked like Stonehenge with a hemispherical cage above which held several height channel speakers. The system software was running a prototype of DTS NeoX optimized for 11.2 channels, with Audessey-based room equalization.

DTS had high definition digital masters of everything we played at Randy's place on consumer 2-channel media, (vinyl and CD's). Fellas, it wasn't even close. Randy's set-up sounded like a very good stereo reproducer - maybe the best I've heard. The DTS set-up was like a time and space warp machine - it put you in the recording venue. Not only that, with movement of the Mac's mouse, it moved your apparent location anywhere in the venue. It was mind-blowing.

Having heard this, it is very hard to take stereo seriously, except as a historical footnote to real high definition audio. This is what I want in my home, and my 5.1 system is much closer than to it than 2-channels can ever be.

Rebel, based on Kal's excellent advice, I went to a Meridian-based system using a G68XXD, a BAT 6200 multi-channel amp and Vandersteen 5.1 speakers. Trifield, as you noted, adds to every stereo program I've tried it on...it seems to add depth of field that stereo lacks via the late Micheal Gerson's magic algorithm.

I agree with Kal's response to Audiolabyrinth - more OF THE SAME speakers will always sound better than the first two, because they make the room acoustic more realistic. Details that one strains to hear in 2-channel are just THERE. In fact, this 3D effect is the biggest difference I hear between a stereo recording and live music at Powell Hall (SLSO), which is, inherently multi-source, kind of like, (dare I say it), Multi-Channel !!