Why is 2 Channel better than multi-channel?

In this thread we see the assumption by some people that multichannel is the same thing as HT. Not so!! The most significant difference is regarding the center speaker. With HT it is desirable to have a center speaker with limited and shaped frequency response because this makes dialogue clearer. For music the opposite is true because the center front speaker almost always gets the strongest signal.

Regarding speakers that reproduce both violin and voice well...some do better than others, but IMHO you really need several different speakers to do everything best. From my experience here are a few examples...
1..Spoken work...KLH5...a three-way using a pair of very lightweight 4" drivers for midrange. (These drivers were used full range in the KLH table radio).
2..Dixieland jazz, and other music with lots of trumpets...Any speaker using compression horn driver(s) for mid and tweeter.
3..Violin...B&W 550 small 2-way monitors with titanium tweeter.

My regular speakers are Maggie 1.6 and they do a good job, if not the best, over a wide range of material.

Landok,

My surround system costs about *$12,000, My home theater? well that's a story of priviledged ownership.

Of course it helps that I built all the speakers and amplifiers but let me note with parts that you can easily buy yourself, the amplifier designs are online for you to build yourself also. I listen to the systems I build to stave off spenind to calm down upgraditis when it itches, since the only way for me to get a better system is to be able to build it better. I'm learning how to make digital dsp crossovers so I can make my speakers better. College courses $3000

Let me note I have heard $8000 complete (DVD player too)surround sound systems outperform $15K+ tube type systems using speakers I felt were very good, and had that confirmed by many others who were equally mystified by the disparity in the qualities of the 2 systems.

I think where you hit a button with me is surround systems don't have to cost an arm and a leg to beat two channel systems. The problem is there is very little support for the end user (who desperately needs to be brought up to speed). Even on enlightened forums like here and AVS, there are precious few people who can begin to make people begin to understand what it takes to make a good surround system for any price. And unfortunately as a perfect example here you can see that these differring views at first are in conflict as common thought makes the thought of surround sound as a serious musical vehicle preposterous.

In a conversation with a speaker designer who is incredibly well regarded on this forum as there are dozens of posts regarding his product currently in action. His words exactly, "I feel a system built around my XXX speakers in a surround system surpass everything I make in my opinion until i'm listening to my larger XXX speakers."

The price difference is the surround speaker system $8000 retail the larger system $75,000+. I protect his identity because of the illogical negative feeling audiophiles have about surround. I don't want to damage his reputation or put him a position to where he has to defend himself.

* When I had a business I used to tell clients that if I could build a better sounding system as a "part time designer" then the products my competition sold (other audio outlets) then why bother with them? When everything we carried was better than what I could build, that was the standard every commercial product had to meet. I used client feedback as my only means of judging how good my designs actually sounded. Many times the clients were unaware that the product they were demoing was built in house until later in the process.

Landok I'm sorry we got off on the usual wrong foot when it comes to these internet boards on this particular topic. Misunderstanding=conflict

velocity,
Thank you for your most enlightening response. Please ignore the two emails that I sent to you. I'm sorry!!! You know who you are and I now know that. Conflict sometimes bring out the best for people and I know that I have benefited from it. I know that you are a dedicated professional who has brought me up to speed. You have my respect for steadfastly defending your position on surround sound/multi channel system. You were not only defending from a standpoint of research and science, but also from years of hands on experience and of course, your passion. One has to have passion in their work to achieve the ultimate outcome. You obviously have that passion and I truly applaud you for it. I hope that all of your work will soon come to fruition in a way that surround sound will be regarded as the prime system to truly enjoy recorded music and works of many great and talented musical performers in the privacy of our homes.

Eldartford,
Well HT is multi channel, but I can understand your fondness for the center speaker. I have somewhat found its use to be problematic and effective at times and as such have used it only selectively with music. You have pointed out that a more careful selection of that speaker will yield effective results and perhaps even enhance the well talked about "sweet spot". The challenge I believe, is to be able to find that speaker quite readily. Having said that, would it be wise for enthusiasts to demand the sale of a third speaker that is exactly the same as the two being sold as a pair? That way blending is optimal and degradation of sound is minimzed or totally a non issue.

I'm not sure what you want to know. Do you want to know why a multi channel amp, with the same specs as a 2 channel, sound different when listening to a just a 2 channel amp on its own?
I've noticed that a mulit channel amp does a very poor job on 2 channel. That's why I use the 2 plus 3 amp set up.
As for music in surrond in general ( if that's your question) Is just sounds bad. My thoughts.