Why is 2 Channel better than multi-channel?

When I listen to 2 channel audio, what I listen for is
realism ... Does a flugel horn sound like a flugelhorn,
a piano like a piano, etc, to my ears in a performing
environment. I have not heard a multi-channel audio
system which does anything to improve upon the basic
musical timbre of instruments. So what can multichannel
audio bring to the table for music listening? If the answer is a larger and more stable sound stage for more listeners without so much tweeking, without muddying
instrumental timbres then multichannel audio is for me.
If the cost of multichannel audio is loss of instrumental
realism in exchange for better imaging, or in exchange for
better reproduction of the performing environment - then
multichannel is not for me.

When I listen, I would like to be able to hear the
performance. If you can't hear the tight bass on a
Steinway grand, you have missed the majic of artist mated
with instrument. An artist doesn't just play an instrument
he/she responds to it. I want to hear the synergy.

Good thread. Glad to see some diverse opinions with valid points being made on both sides of the fence.

As to the stance that i ( and probably others ) took, let's just say that we have been pretty dis-illusioned with what the industry has had to offer. After all, they've handed us line after line after line of bogus advertising and propaganda regarding every "high tech" advancement that they've come up with. If this multi-channel does take off, will we have to buy a pro logic decoder ? Then what about an AC-3 decoder when that format arrives? Then what happens when DTS comes out ? I think that you get the point.

On top of that, it has "only" taken 15 - 20 years to get "redbook" cd's to sound good. While a lot of the digital knowledge that they've learned along the way can be applied to multi-channel sound, the question is will they ??? If so, to what extent and when ???

I hate to sound like a dinosaur clinging to existence as i know it, but i don't think that ANYONE wants to go through dozens of "upgrades" and "new investments" every time that they come out with a new format. Even if multi-channel SACD or DVD-A do take off, what is to say that these formats will last a reasonable amount of time ? Personally, i would put my money on DVD-A becoming a commercial success over SACD due to the multi-channel sound and video potential. I think that this is becoming more evident as commercial artists start to embrace it. While SACD may sound better ( when done properly ), quality has little to do with what the public likes or thinks is convenient.

As it is now, neither is good enough or has enough software available to make me think twice about becoming a hardcore advocate. Doing such would cause me to have to replenish my "software" collection with yet another format AND make me rethink / re-invest a large amount of time / money into making my systems "multi-channel" compatible. As such, i'm sure that i'm not alone in these thoughts or feelings.

Then again, the "commoner" with a small investment in their entertainment system might not think twice about buying the latest & greatest "full featured" multi-channel rack system from Best Buy / Circuit City for $499. To some extent, this type of division ( quality vs quantity ) pits the "audiophile" against the "average consumer". As such, we will probably end up becoming an even smaller "niche market" as things progress. After all, to the average person, "more" IS "better". Sean
>

The quality of imaging available in multichannel systems using height information (for example David Chesky's 6.0 audio layout) substantially surpasses what even the best of 2 or 3 channel stereo can do. Bomarc is right in stating that 5.1 is theater-driver and is not optimized for audio.
It will be some time before the recording community and audio industry at large learn how to record, produce and market multichannel audio in a practical way. This is a large subject and cannot be covered here.
However, as multichannel evolves, it's to be hoped that audiophiles will be the first to recognize the potential, since we care more about sound quality than does any other group.

I should add that in many cases mono has better fidelity than stereo 2ch.
I do collect old mono records for their outstanding sound quality of the golden era.

I would agree with sean. When a two channel system is set up correctly, the soundstage needs NO speaker in the middle. The problem is that seldom do people take the time to learn and execute proper speaker placement, or people build the system without regards to the room volume and dimensions (Too big of speakers in too small of room with a rack of equipment or worse a big T.V. in the middle). This will lead to disapointment of two channel. It has taken years to get two channel right,dedicated circits, wires not crossing all over the place, dampening materials on walls,correct speaker width and distance from sweet spot, speaker in proper placement in relationship to room boundies, correct toe-in of speakers, amp stands and stereo stand dampend (which is major important with tubes). With all this done, critical listening can be done to really bring a system to life. You will hear the differance in tubes, wires and anything else you do to the system. Once you get to this point you will not want to add more because you will get less, less enjoyment! Keep it simple.
It seems that people try to improve sound by making things more complicated. I have tried this approach and have been disappointed. More speakers, bigger subwoofers, The typical american approach. Now I keep it simple and the rewards have been great

Ted

system: sony sacd-1 feeds to cary 805c with 40pt step-attenuators built-in feeding proac 2.5. two 20amp and two 15 amp dedicated circuits with kimber sockets. lots of sand and mdf board lamanted togeter for dampening. This is my path to bliss.

Technically, it's not. A good multichannel system can provide far more spatial information than any 2-channel rig. The catch is the word, "good." 5.1 is a rather poor compromise essentially imposed by the movie industry. Then there are the cost and set-up challenges. I'm sticking to 2-channel (even for video!), but I won't claim it's inherently better.

While Herman nailed it on the head, you also have to consider that you now have an even greater amount of speaker to room interaction taking place. If you have actually ever taken the time to try to obtain optimum performance with TWO speakers, you already know that you don't want to mess with trying to set up a half dozen. Sean
>

For the past 50 years or so people have been working to optimize the sound of the hardware in a 2 channel system. They have also been working to optimize the sound of 2 channel recordings. Then a few years ago multi-channel recordings were introduced. Since everything in the past 50 years has been optimized for 2 channels, it only stands to reason that the multi channel systems will take a while to catch up. There are tens of thousands of stereo recordings and a limited number of multichannel in various formats. We still don't have standard. SACD, DVD, 5.1 , 7.1 ????????

The other factor is that to match the fidelity of a 2 channel system, the 5 channel will be about 2.5 times as expensive with the extra speakers and amplifiers. The 7 channel will be about 3.5 times as expensive. Since the best 2 channel is already very expensive, the equivalent multi channel systems are out of reach for most people.

So to answer your original question, It is not that it can't be done. It is that the hardware will be very expensive and there is at this point in time, a limited amount of software.