Why is 2 Channel better than multi-channel?

There is definatly something to be said about having identical speakers. not just identical drivers, but identical units on all sides.

Sure you can get away with having some towers in the front, some dipole surrounds and a center all from the same manufacturer, but they STILL sound different.

Imaging this, if you have a 2 channel setup, and say you go with a KEF Q1 for the right channel and a KEF Q7 for the left channel. everybody will think you have gone mad.

Well the same applies to HT as well. however, its less noticable in HT because your FL FR do most if not all of the music in movies, and the rears are just for effects. (Primarily)

I refuse to buy a center channel and "Surrounds" for this reason. In fact, that is one of the reasons i sold my whole Deftech speaker set. 2 2004tls, 2 BP66s, and 1 procenter. and my THX certified Av reciever.

After hearing a HT setup with all identical speakers, and all identical channels i realized that going with different speakers even from the same manufacturer degrad3es the sound.

Now im running a DENON 3803, with 192/24b DACs on all 7 channels, 110W on all 7 channels, all identical amplifiers
I bought a set of KEF Q1's (incredible speaker, especially for the price), and now im saving up to buy another, then another. Im going to run all 7 channels of this with 1 type of speaker.

As far as integrated / sepeates is concerned, seperates are probably better, however, i just bought that denon 3803 and its sound quality blows my mind.
I dont think that seperates will always be better, i just think that AV recievers need to do some catching up.
Some day AV recievers will be able to produce as good sound as any pre / amp setup. It just needs more time and R&D

7 Channel stereo mode sounds pretty cool when all your speaks are the same

other than that, i dont believe 2 chan is superior to multichannel. I think multichannel is still a work in progress. I also think it is a matter of personal preference.

I like the versitility of a multichannel setup.

Viggen,

Definitive produces a full-range center speaker....
As does KEF. Cant remember the model numbers but there are full range "Center speakers" out there.

I think im going to skip the "Center speaker" all together and add full range identical to my fronts.

I personally like to keep all 7 speakers identical.

Quad,
Man, if they come out with a 40.8 system, im selling everything and will buy a bose accoustimass, then get myself brainwashed so i forget i was ever in this rotton hobby. :)

I think there is just less of a demand on the sonics of a multichannel setup, due to the nature of its existance, ands its natural ability to overcome lack of imaging or soundstage by adding speakers.

Instead of having two speakers running constantly creating a large soundstage and imaging etc etc, you have multiple channels. Why do you need imaging if the sound is coming from the proper direction?
I think the emphasis of High end theater is way too demanding, i think multichannel was designed so the average joe could have enveloping sound without all the needed speaker placement yada yadda. and i dont think multi channel was ever really intended for audiophiles, but more for the mass market?

sure, sacd and DVD-a are multichannel, but untill these came out, multi channel music was just logic processors attempting to overcome the shortcomins of bad accoustics and speaker placement, or to creat a "Wow gee" affect on consumers expectation of more is better

multichannel music probably woulda gone the way of the DODO if it wasnt for surround sound movies. However, its probably here to stay in some form or another because multichannel setups are becoming more and more common in households.

The multichannel cconcept is largly leaned twards movies, and it does not take nearly as precise speaker placement to get spectacular sound as it does with 2 channel.

If course, im not debating the fact that good equipment and well done placement with room treatments can make it sound better, however, i believe that the increase in sonics between a $1000 HT in a box and a $55,000 with good placement is far less significant than the difference in sonics between a $1000 stereo setup and a $55,000 stereo with proper placement and treatments.

Sometimes i feel like HT setup is just easier to obtain the great sound becuase you are dealing with sound effects, and have extra speakers to cover the shortcomings of imaging and soundstage,

Sometimes, i wonder weather or not HT was ever meant to be High End as 2channel was. Sometimes i dont think it was. if you look at the "how much does your system retail for" audiophiles have a trend of spending more on 2channel than HT. Sometimes i think comparing them is like apples to oranges.

its easy to get a HT to sound good. its harder to get a 2ch to sound good. Most good 2ch setups DO sound better than multichannel setups though.

just my humble opinion, no real research on this, just what i figure from noticing the sonic differences and main uses for stereo vs. multichannel.

Im just presenting some ideas that i have not really seen yet.

any thoughts?

Now, where the hell did i put that spell checker?