Why is 2 Channel better than multi-channel?

Kal,
I'm still a bit confused. When you talk about the recording engineer deciding what goes to each individual channel, are you strictly talking about multi-channel recordings like DVD-A and SACD? I was thinking more along the lines of regular old redbook CD and running that through the processor for 2,3,5, etc. channel playback.

Thanks
Brad

Yes, exactly. Running Redbook through a processor is highly variable as there are many different processors, only some of which permit user intervention. In fact, I don't really consider that multichannel (well, it is multichannel output but the info is not). Of these, favorite is Meridian's TriField.

Kal (who denies the premise of this entire thread)

Greetings fellow Agoners.While I tried to read as many of the responses that I could I'm sure that I missed a few so if anyone else covered this aspect I'm sorry.While it's true that the majority of multi channel studio recordings(SACD,DVD-A) have been mixed inproperly, where multi channel music TRUELY pulls ahead of stereo is in the reproduction of recorded LIVE music.I am a live music fan & the majority(about 70%) of my over 300 Redbook/SACD/DVD-A discs are live recordings.My library also contains at last count 135 concert dvd's.While most of these live recordings where done as stereo recordings, post processing has opened up EVERY one of them to the point where disbelief can be suspended & the ILLUSION of actually being part of the crowd is as easy as closing my eyes.Yes,while a good 2 channel system provides a reasonable renditon of these performances they never provide the truely expansive illusion that the multi channel playback provides.And with almost all concert dvd's being remixed under the close supervision of the original recording artist the studio engineers are finally starting to understand how multi channel should be used to extract direct & indirect information so as to put the viewer in the middle of the concert crowd(& NOT the band).While studio recordings will probably always sound best from a 2 channel system(due to the LIMITED spatial information inherent in the recording process),there is no doubt in my mind what so ever that any recording done live,wheather a live cd recording or concert dvd,can only be appreciated at it's absolute best with a properly matched & set up multi channel system.I guess it all boils down to what what the majority of your listening tastes are.If your a solo listener who locks into a sweet spot for the duration of an intimate recording of a chamber ensemble or jazz singer it's likely that you will never appreciate the true magic of multi channel.If however you are like me, & revel in the live concert,be it the San Francisco Symphony Orchestra recorded live at Daly City Symphony Hall or AC/DC recorded live at Donnington Castle then the future is multi channel & I for one will be there every step of the way!

Anyone thinking about getting an SACD player..., do it! An SACD and decent SACD player does sound better than a Red Book CD and decent player.

In fact, there's quite a few SACDs that are two and three channel. You get to hear the highly regarded RCA Living Stereo SACDs the way the original records were recorded back in the 50's-early 60's.

They were all recorded in either 2 or 3 channel. If you have a center channel speaker that's equivalent to your front speakers, the three channel SACDs will sound fantastic. They actually used three microphones when recording, one for each side and one for the center.

I have both. A McIntosh-based 5.1 system in the living room with a blend of vintage mac (MX119 PA 4 ML1s MPI4 MQ101EQ 2 ML10s MQ102EQ MC2105 etc.) and newer mac (861 dvd 252 power amp). You can build EXCELLENT and affordable multi-channel by blending vintage and current technology.

The bedroom is 2-channel with first gereration McIntosh solid state MX112 Tuner Preamp MQ101EQ MC2100 2 ML1s). The best stereo image, definition, and separation I have EVER experienced. It sounds like tubes because it was ENGINEERED to sound like tubes. Pure and neutral.

I will always love the mac ML series. That is the first mac I was able to afford in 1971 (with MA6100) and I still have the original ML1s. I fell for them when I heard the Tank drum solo and Take A Pebble from ELP's first through them.

I appreciate both stereo and multi-channel for what they are. I set up the bedroom system because I missed pure 2-channel. Listen to Santana's third in stereo. Outstanding.

My point is ... trust your ears. 2-channel is ONLY better than multi-channel if YOU think it is better.

Peace