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
Martin - What you need to realize is that you were 15 years ahead of the crowd 10 years ago. Ambisonic will be complete nonsense to the majority IF they even pay you any attention. Its an uphill battle the IMO isn't worth the effort.

Have at it bro!! Fight on!
I'm not a big fan of multi-channel and it may be because of my age (over 60). Two channels make sense for music because that is how it is listened to: i.e., singers and musicians are in front of you and not all around you. I see multi-channel as more related to home theater and movies and not music. With that being said, I also accept that we all have our own preferences. Just read the different opinions on speakers, cables, amps, etc. on Audiogon.
Well, I've reviewed a lot of responses to this thread, but still pose the question in terms of "upgrading". First let me say I spend 50% of the time listening to music, with the balance being 30% movies and then 20% televison/sports. I;ve always enjoyed B & W speakers in a much-appreciated 2 channel system, powered by the famous c320bee amp and its nad brother single cd player. Now I face the prospect of changing to a system powered by a denon 3310 a/v receiver to accommodate the thirst for movies (first time buyer of the denon brand and a/v breed).

I wonder if:

1) the same sound quality will be found in this denon a/v receiver (what hi-fi 4 stars) powering a pair of b/w 602 s3 bookshelves and center htm 61 for movies... versus

2)the c320bee for 2 channel (versus 3 channel) audio through the same speaker set - up..
I have a basic low-budget surround system (head unit, amp, bass and 5 speakers which includes center speaker) in my car that allows me to listen to both 2-channel and surround music--both in discs (DTS CDs, redbook, SACD DVD-A, DVD and redbook) and Dolby ProLogic II processor. The good news on this is that I never miss the sweet spot!

While I agree speaker placement is important, just as important is the disc itself, the quality of the recording and the quality of the mix and mastering engineer. This goes for both 2-channel and multi-channel discs (some with different mixes on the same disc).

I have heard some multichannel discs and/or mixes that surpass 2-channel recordings, though I have 2 channel recordings that do the exact
opposite. Some 2-channel recordings' soundstage sound so lifelike and immersive that you forget you're listening to multichannel! Conversly, I have heard gimmicky 5-channel recordings (SACD and DVD DTS or DD)hat turning off the center channel is the only option. This goes
especially for some recordings where the main vocal is isolated in the center channel...it sounds like there's a ghost in the room. Freaky!

In conclusion, I'm a "plug and play" type guy and hate tweaking. By having either having a 2-channel or 5-channel properly set-up in a stationary position, one really needs all to do is focus on the recording itself. (please exuse any typos.)
I've offered a response I think back in 2002 but perhaps I can offer a bit more insight since then.

The all-important question is what "sound" are we talking about?

For my response, I'll assume you're implying "the absolute sound" (tas), the sound of unamplified music in a recording or concert hall space.

1) It should be quite rare to find any 'receiver' whose sonic performance can match a high-quality amp and preamp. A receiver and perhaps some-to-many multi-ch integrated amps are better known for convenience and being a jack-of-all-trades and master of none. Some of these receivers are so loaded with internal parts that I'd guess to match the internal component and build quality of some better 2-channel amps, a receiver might have to retail at $20k or more.

That is probably the most reasonable and easily justifiable explanation why multi-channel systems would struggle to sonically compete with 2-channel.

2) Along the same vein as no. 1 above, one would have to budget for similar quality of interconnects, speaker cables, and speakers to maintain an apples to apples comparison in sound. In other words, if you budget say $10k for interconnects, speaker cables, and speakers for a 2-channel system, you'd need to multiply that $10k amount a number of times over to maintain the same level of sonic quality and musicality in a multi-channel system. Without somebody willing to follow this methodology, it's impossible to do an apples-to-apples comparison and since people are more apt to compromise performance to meet a budget when going the multi-channel route, the multi-channel version will suffer compared to what they might own or purchase for just a 2-channel system.

3) Getting back to the absolute sound as the goal to strive for, it is no secret that some-to-many with a passion for live music and high-end freely confess that we are lucky if even our very best (2-ch) playback systems can capture 15% or at most 20% of the magic or believability of the live performance. Some think even this 15 or 20% is too high.

For the sake of argument, assume that 100% of the live performance is embedded in the recording medium and the source (the music server, cd player, or turntable) is also able to retrieve 100% of the information embedded in the recording. Obviously, one or both are potentially big assumptions.

But if per chance one or both of those assumptions are relatively accurate, that would imply that while processing the signal our components (including ics, scs, and speakers) are either only processing a fraction of the information or are processing the vast majority or even 100% of information but during the processing, our components (including cables and speakers) are smearing or blurring the signal to the point where the information becomes inaudible, drops into the noise floor while also raising the noise floor.

Since the components, ics, scs, and speakers in a 2-ch system has blurred or smeared much of the signal to point where the vast majority of the music information is inaudible (mostly low level detail and some high-level detail), then it stands to reason that even if all other things are equal, just the mere number of extra components, cables, and speakers for a multi-channel system would imply that a multi-channel system would induce more distortion (less music) simply because of the added hardware. And since it is unreasonable or even impossible for any component, cable, or speaker to be truly neutral, it stands to reason that this is a very viable possibility.

The problem with multi-channel is that some-to-many assume that introducing more speakers translates to more audible music information. There's simply no truth to that old wives tale. It's roughly the same audible information (15% or 20% at most of the live performance) of the 2-channel but now spread across more than just two speakers. This should be true even if the sound engineer inserted 1000 carefully placed recording mic's throughout the recording hall and the consumer had 1000 speakers to reproduce the recording in a listening room.

Additionally, if one owns a multi-channel system, it's not uncommon to start playing with the DSP modes and features to add a false sense of ambient information, that no matter how you look at it is a further distortion of the original signal since it is not actually retrieving or making audible more of the recorded information, it's simply altering the audible portions of it.

I think all 3 explanations hold water, but in the bigger scheme of things, I think number 3 is the most significant reason why multi-channel, as impressive and fun as it might sound, at best simply cannot retrieve any more information than a 2-channel system. At worst, multi-channel adds more distortion.

To an untrained ear the multi-channel could easily sound more impressive or 'real' but that does not mean it actually is more realistic sounding.

-IMO