Why is 2 Channel better than multi-channel?

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.

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
>

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.

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.

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.