Why is 2 Channel better than multi-channel?


I hear that the music fidelity of a multi-channel AV Receiver/Integrated amp can never match the sounds produced by a 2 channel system. Can someone clearly explain why this is so?

I'm planning to upgrade my HT system to try and achieve the best of both worlds, I currently have a 3 channel amp driving my SL, SR, C and a 2 channel amp driving my L and R.
I have a Denon 3801 acting as my pre. Is there any Pre/Proc out there that can merge both worlds with out breaking my bank? Looking for recommendations on what my next logical steps should be? Thanks in advance.
springowl

Showing 6 responses by edorr

I'm a little late to the game here but could not resists weighing in. There is no doubt in my mind that a very good recording which is available in a 5.1 and 2.0 mix, is more enjoyable in 5.1 at any systems pricepoint over say 5K (or even a bit lower). For example, the Nordic 2L recordings come in 5.1 96/24 and 2.0 192/24 and the MCH mix wins hands down on any half decent surround system.

Think of it like this. You have say 20K invested in a good 2 channels system, and have 10K more to spend. Your options are upgrading your 20K 2 channels system to a 30K 2 channels system, or spend 10K on a center channel, pair of surrounds, 3 channel poweramp and active sub. Your 2.0 channel upgrade is deep into diminishing returns territory, while your 2.0 to 5.1 upgrade is a huge net system improvement. The issue is that because outside of the classical reportoire there are so few good native 5.1 mixed recordings available, many people in the audio crowd would understandable opt for the 2 channel upgrade anyway. However, this is not because a 2 channel 30K system is better than a 30K 2 channel system. It is because there is no content to enjoy the superior 5.1 system. Obviously for the movie crowd the equation is different.

So in my opinion you cannot discuss the relative merits of 2.0 and 5.1 without considering availability of content. Interestingly, the way audio is evolving it looks like legacy MCH high rez (i.e. SACD and DVD-A) is dead, future MCH high rez (i.e. Blu Ray music) is not really going anywhere, and 2 channel high rez may well have a future through 96/24 and 192/24 downloads. I personally love MCH high rez audio and this state of affairs frustrates me no end, but what can you do other than spinning your favorite MCH recordings over and over again....
The notion that 2 channel is inherently better for music reproduction is ludicrous. A well recorded discrete 5.1 mix of the same content sound far better than the same material mixed in stereo. This is true even when you do the comparison on similarly priced MCH and 2 channel systems (in other words, you don't even need five identical speakers and amps to achieve this result). I have 50K worth of mains speaker, cable and poweramp, and a relatively modest 10K center, sub and surrounds (speakers + amps). In my setup MCH completely blows 2 channel out of the water. If I took this 10K and applied it towards an upgrade of my 2 channel system I would get a marginal improvement. I can only imagine how good MCH would sound if my center and surrounds were of the same caliber as my mains.

The reason no one is bothering with MCH music is pure and simple the lack of content, wiht the exception of classical.
When you're in a concert hall (reflected) music is coming to you from all angles as well. A MCH system is better capable of recreating this acoustic environment than 2 channel. Of course, this is not the same as some old quad mix with guitars blaring from the surround channels behind you. Here I agree with you. I also hate most synthetic surround sound generated with a DSP from 2 channel sources. What I am talking about is well recorder discrete 5.1.

Subjective as this may be, I am 100% sure that if I played the same track in 2.0 and 5.1 in my system to 100 random listeners, >90% would prefer the 5.1 track. The simple reason is that it is closer to the live experience.
The Los Angelos Guitar Quartet has a very well recorded SACD out ("Latin"), with one of the guitar players mixed to each of the four corner channels. They have a few more SACDs out that probably does the same.

If you want to experience instruments coming at you from all four corners in quite a different genre, get the quadrophonic mix of Deep Purple's Machine Head.
Even if you had a string quartet playing in a small room, you would not put one musician in each corner of the room. The "stage" approach emulates "being in the band", not a small ensemble performing in a small room.

Just for kicks I played my "one instrument per channel" LA Guitar Quartet SACD yesterday, and I must say I much prefer "audience" mixes (i.e. instruments/vocals from the front, ambience cues from the surrounds). Thenagain, I never played in an orchestra so may be "stage" mixes just needs to grow on you.
Living in the deep South I am more concerned about local politicians banning music on Sunday altogether, than any Obama regulation, but thenagain we probably have different political affiliations.