Why is 2 Channel better than multi-channel?

I wonder if technology since '02 could have changed the answer to this question a bit. I always thought that 2 channel would be better for fidelity than multi. In general that does seem to be the case with my stuff and most of my music. I do on the other hand have lots of electronic (gasp MP3's) that frankly sound pretty bad in 2 channel mode. I have found that for the bad stuff it sounds WAY better on my system to run my receiver in Extended Stereo mode and fake it to 5.1 channels. Maybe someone can explain it to me but it really helps. I wind up switching between 2.0 and 5.1 regularly. Mind, I'm not sure if this was a typical option in 2002.

Well, you can get a Krell HTS 5.1 which has a preamp mode which bypasses the digital stuff so you can listen just to the front. I have one and love the sound, only its difficult to set up at first. You can find them here for sale.

I didn't read the previous posts so if I'm being redundant, then sorry.

Cheers

Quadraphonic baby.

If that technology EVER gets off the ground, it will be better than stereo.

WHOOPS...I so meant ambisonics, NOT quadraphonic.

Talk about learn something new everyday...I had no idea 2ch was better than multi-ch...wow.