Stereo sounds better than 5.1?

Interesting thread, but I can't buy into the premise that 5.1 sounds better than stereo. Perhaps it's because I'm use to listening to two speakers not 5.1. For me, I hear more image focus, detail and timbre correct resolution in stereo. The soundstage appears more balanced and the presentation is more musical and satisfying.

There is a lot to be said for the new home theater sound format. I'm sure it will eventually become the standard setup for some. The 5.1 format is dynamic and dazzling with movies and some musical source material. That's just fine by me but when I want to really hear the music two speakers is all I'm ever going to need. That's just what I like and what is "best" to me. Regards; -Jerie

For the cost of doing 5.1 right, you can do 2 channel way better. I prefer the stage to be in front of me, not surrounding me. Movies are another story, but for music my vote is for 2 channel. You tell Tireguy to keep it nice right after you qestion his ability to hear? Wasn't the Adcom 750 rated class A? You should write Stereophile and enlighten them to your all mighty knowledge. It is a pretty big blanket statement to say that anybody with any REAl audio experience will have to agree with you. I would say there are lots of folks here with plenty of experience. Maybe believe it or not beyond yours even that will disagree. It is the same as posting CD'S are the better than records, if you don't agree than you can't hear. It's just asking for a fight.

On the scale of 1 to 10 with 1 being the worst and 10 being the greatest, the 5.1 is exactly being to 5.1 in this scale!

Stereo for music hands down. I do have a very good processor: EAD ovation with Martin Logan monoliths and Logos with Levinson, Krell, and Classe amplification. I have done quite a bit of experimentation in this area. Steely Dan's 2 against nature DTS is very good in 5.1, but these songs in 2 channel stereo are much better. Better soundstage and far more natural. Now, downmixing a 5.1 channel to 2 channel--the 5.1 sounds better--it was designed to be played back at 5.1. But compare it and the same material that was recorded for and played back in 2 channel--the 2 channel wins hands down--that is if your 2 channel playback is set up properly. I have found that 5.1 channel can compensate for deficiencies in 2 channel set-ups. For example, speakers too close to a wall that can't create an image properly in 2 channel set-up, sound fine in 5.1 because the center fills in and the rears create some soundstage. (This would also hold true for speakers that don't image very well--I had this experience when I owned Klipsch speakers). So if you are experiencing an improvement of 5.1 over 2 channel, you might spend some time on improving the 2 channel set-up--sounds like your missing some really great music.

5.1 is pure digital manipulation and fine for movies; But the technology is not there yet. 2 Channel music is light years better. Even the sound field (stage) does not work in 5.1 -- Imagine yourself sitting in the center of the New York Philarmonic, in a circle, with them all facing you while playing. There are certain sounds created by the orchestra playing together. This is destroyed in surround sound, because the instrument are coming at you from all directions. While very very interesting to listen to from a technical standpoint, it would grow tiresome quickly because it isn't "Music", just sound IMHO.