Stereo sounds better than 5.1?


I don't think so !!! More speakers, if done right (ie. the right pre-amp), you get, better imaging, better clarity, better everything. Nobody that has any "Good" audio experience can disagree with this. If you do disagree, YOUR WRONG. I feel sorry for all you are missing. End of story.
urban
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.
I would not consider that I have yet heard a great 5.1 system, while have heard some great stereo systems, so I guess that my final judgement on this will have to be up in the air for a bit.

As to my systems, I have integrated my HT setup with my stereo system. The stereo side of the system is decent, imaging is great, soundstage is beautiful, and overall I find it a joy to listen to.

The HT side of the system is on the high-end of low-end; speakers are different brand and lesser than front left and right. It is adequate for movies, actually better than many I have heard. But for music, it is just not there.

So I would be very interested in hearing some idea of what a reference 5.1 system would look like... What electronics, what speakers, what placement, room size etc.

Niels.