Why is 2 Channel better than multi-channel?

"Hey Jeffreybehr. With 2 channel, music still arrives at our 2 ears from all directions. And live music *starts* its journey to our ears typically from in front of us, not all around us. So what's your point?"

My point is that an equally good 4- or 5-channel system simply gets it 'righter' than the same-quality 2-channel system. I have NEVER heard a 2-channel system that sounds as natural and spacious when playing big-orchestra music as my own 5-channel system. I can't comment on multichannel pop mixes since I listen to none, but the vast majority of multichannel recordings of big orchestras I've heard sound more natural and real--more like The Absolute Sound of a real orchestra playing in a real space--than the BEST 2-channel recordings I've ever heard, and they sound MUCH better than the multimono, multimiced, knob-twiddled 2-channel recordings that comprise about 95% of the classical recordings we usually get.

No matter how great a 2-channel system sounds, and some of them can and do sound VERY good, adding 3 appropriately matching channels to it will improve its realism and naturalness...IMO, of course.

I'm damn glad the industry has come up with the hi-res, multichannel media of DVD-A and SACD. They may not be selling lots, but QUALITY never has--witness the gross revenues of the brain-dead boom-and-crash movies aimed at adolescent diddeeboppers compared with those of some movies one may have to THINK about, such as 'Off the Map', 'Sideways', or 'The Wild Parrotts of Telegraph Hill'.

I suspect those of you who dis multichannel-music reproduction may never have heard a great-sounding one. If you're ever in Phoenix, look me up.
.

to add to jeffrebehr's offer - if you're in austin/san antonio area, look me up.

by the way, nice system there, jeff!

OH! So what you are saying is that you like it better. That's quite different from offering a theoretical reason why it *is* intrinsically better, which is what I took you to be offereing when you said 'Music arrives at our 2 ears from all directions. Five channels gets it lots righter than just 2', as an apparant explanation of why 5 channel is better than two. That explanation would go just as well (or badly) for 10 channel rather than 5, 17 rather than 13, and n+1 rather than n.

Anyway, if you are just saying it sounds better, maybe so. But that doesn't answer or even address the OP's question at all. It just contradicts its implication.

Rnm4

TYVM, Lazarus. It started as a 2-channel audio system; I added the multichannel stuff for movies, but the multichannel classical and film music sounded SO good--natural, spacious--that my in-remission audiofoolia reared its ugly head. I replaced the universal-disc player, the preamp, ALL (about a dozen, I think) speakers, all 3 poweramps, all the IC and speakercable, etc.

It's now the best-sounding AUDIO system I've ever heard...but I don't go searching for hi-end audio systems to listen to. :-)
.

Rnm4, that was deeeeeeeep man!
I'm a simpleton, and eat Cheerios and such. Could you repeat all that again for me in "simpleton terminology" I'm not sure I got all of what you said there.
I only read your post once however. Maybe that's why...duhu!