Why is 2 Channel better than multi-channel?

In my limited exposure to multichannel music, I have heard recordings in which the surrounds were used to effectively reproduce the ambience of the recording space. If the mix is done well, and the multichannel playback system is set up well (two difficult tasks), then multichannel recordings can enhance the experience that "you are there," by presenting ambience cues omnidirectionally, just as they were presented in the recording space.

On the other hand, I have also heard multichannel music recordings in which, half way through a track, a lone violin started screaming out of one of the surrounds. My head whipped around like a gunshot had gone off. This approach to multichannel music can be very unnatural, to use Niacin's word.

Like all technology, multichannel technology can be a blessing or a curse, depending on how it is used.

Bryon

...the instruments are individually distributed to the five channels. For example: violin left, viola right, flute center, cello left surround, piano right surround.

Eldartford - This is the approach to multichannel music that I find unnatural, since I am not accustomed to hearing music from the middle of a chamber group. Having said that, I don't want to imply that other people should feel the way I do. It's a matter of preference, and in this case, I don't believe that one preference is more valid than the other.

The effect is to put the musicians in your room as opposed to the usual approach of transporting you to some recording venue.

I think you are right about this. So, whether you find this approach to multichannel music appealing depends largely on whether you prefer the illusion that "you are there" or the illusion that "they are here." That distinction was discussed at length in another thread.

Bryon

...the fact that multichannel media can be used to satisfy either preference should be regarded as one of its technical advantages.

I agree, Kal.