Two-channel is inferior to multi-channel, no?

Multi-channel is ALWAYS better than 2-channel with well-recorded sources. These will become prevalent with time, since 5.1 home theater systems have out-sold 2-channel rigs by a wide margin for sometime, and digital is becoming cheaper and cheaper.

recently heard two systems, back to back with similar recordings on the same day. The first was a Vandersteen 7 / Audio Research / Basis (analog) 2-channel system playing 50's jazz. The second was at DTS which had an 11.2 system, using Vienna Acoustics monitors in a perfect circle away from the room boundaries, (think Stonehenge), Ayre amps, dcs DACs and high bit-rate digital program sources. There was NO comparison. The DTS set-up was far superior in every respect, and was probably the best sound reproduction I have ever heard.

2-channel analog audio had it's day, but that day has passed.

I would also like to qualify some of the responses above, where others are stating "multi-channel as superior". My experience is that most cannot even setup a 2 channel system for best sound, let alone 5 or more ch!
Let's just assume two equal quality level of recodings, sacd, whatever - one two channel, the other 5.1 ch recording. If you wind up getting several channels set up for lackluster performance from the speakers (due to poor placement and overall setup, acoustics, issues, etc), and you can forget about hi-fidelity coming at you from all around!
Imagine one speaker sitting in an acoustic hole at 63-80hz, or another too close to the walls (reinforce all the upper bass/mid frequencies and improperly treating reflection points ), or one speaker out in the open, and all of a sudden you wind up with way different fideltiy sound coming from each speaker. Now you got lack luster sound, and a hodge-podge setup, that's in dire need of some help!
I think, with 2 speakers, most people have a much better shot at getting a reasonably descent setup attempt -less possible acoustic issues to address, simpler, etc. In this case, you'll likely have the potential for better over all sound quality. I'm just sayin.
The more complicated, the more the average audio hobbiest is gunna screw things up. K.I.S.S. applies here over throwing in many more variables, beyond the control of the masses.
What does everyone think here on my viewpoint?

I agree that multiple- channel is harder to set-up, but Audyssey and other digital EQ software solutions are making this less of a problem.

The simple truth of home audio is that the room is the most important component, whether 2, 3, 5 or 7 channel. If you don't get the room right, no matter how much money you spend on everything else, you limit the ability of your system to recreate the artist's intended acoustic 3-space. In my opinion, that 3-space is the whole point. If you can't recreate it, then monophonic reproduction is as valid as anything else you may try, and costs a lot less.

My test for multi channel versus two channel... What would the band playing live do ? I bet it's two channel ! Save the multi channel for movie soundtracks...

Yes, Audyssey - or any other DSP room correction/EQ device - is a good tool for helping systems/acoustics out. This is certain. As a final tune for your system, I think these are necessary, particularly in typical small home systems, shared entertainment spaces, and most any situation where you're not dealing with all out fully dedicated and engineered acoustic spaces, sure.
That however does NOT FIX fundamental flaws in initial setup parameters and considerations.
Here's what something like Audyssey WILL NOT DO:

1) account for/fix acoustic "holes in the response curve"!
(place a speaker/seat where there's a hole in the
response, and you'll ALWAYS have a hole in the sound)
2) properly adjust for phase between ALL listening
positions and speaker locations, in relation to each
other and the subwoofers!
3) properly "aim" or "toe-in" your loud speakers for
even coverage and tonality across all seating locations
4) fix for inherently placing loud speakers "too wide" in
relation to one another (causing undefined oundstage,
soft transients, and week overall imaging.
5) teach you to properly place loudspeakers so their not
placed too close together, creating too narrow of a
soundstage, constricting envelopment, and cramping
steering
5) properly place speakers for proper steering and
envelopement
6) Adjust phase between multiple subwoofers for accurate
phase from all listening positions in relation to each.
7) properly address first order refelctions in the room
from listeing positions in relation to speakers
8) accurately adjust and/or deal with "reverb" (rt60) in
the room (you got too much bass and overhang to
replicate a large acoustic space - room sounds "small")
9) accurately predict and adjust for a good crossover
between speakers and subs (Even Audyssey gets it wrong)
10)Help you chose correct gear allowing for maximum focus
impact, dialog inteligibility, resolution, overall
system matching, etc (years of audiophile experience
can't be erased and made up for with Audyssey, sorry.)
11)Can't replace refined equipment, and what it offers,
beyond what EQ'ing can do.
12)Nor can fancy EQ's help you adequatly select the proper
types, amounts, and locations of acoustic treatments
necessary to get the best sound from a room/system.

Basically, Audyssey and the likes helps greatly, yes. Still, it cannot fix foundational errors, and educate someone on how to put together a complicated multichannel system, and expect world beatter kind of results! It's just not gunna happen...unless you get real REAL lucky.
I mean we're talking 7 speaker, a subwoofer or two, multiple seating positions (likely), various acoustical issues to be properly addressed (thes rooms are SMALL), and a myriad of other issues that most novices aren't gunna have a clue about (if you don't know what's doing what, how can you fix it?)
Bottom line, can't replace experience with gadgets..and you can't get me to believe someone who's using Audyssey on their denon, to EQ out their Bose system, has the end-all-be-all system! Um, no