Why is 2 Channel better than multi-channel?

Asin,

"it is not as forward or details perhaps due to the loss of resolution on multichannel format."

Actually your brain cannot focus as well on the "little" details that are really unimportant in the end because you are immerssed in such a large soundfield. The resolution of the SACD is equal on each channel whether its 2 or 4 or 5 channels being played back. 2 channel is effectively removing 2/3rds of the ambiant field, it is actually lower resolution.

Why digital sounds so thin in two channels has everything to do with this over focused truncated soundstage and lack of an ambiant field. So for better or worse, your perception is a common one but not for the reasons you attribute it too.

There is no real decoding, except for system adjustment like distance your seated from the speakers.

"24bit/192KHz but multi channel is 24bit/96KHz" may change the sound but not the resolution.

Cinematic - I think the main reason why 2channels just don't get MC is that have a tough time grasping the concept to 5 speakers working as one, just as two can work as one. Or am I talking newbie jibberish again?

I can guarentee if the MC system was setup properly, they would understand.

Agreed?

I dumped my MCH system not because it didn't sound good. it sounded great. i gave up trying to find MCH music SACDs and DVD-As that I liked enough to pay $15-$25 for. Now I have excellent 2 chan with lots of CD and LP choices. If I want MCH music, I rent a DVD video and listen/watch in my HT. Best of both worlds.

Cinematic_Systems: Could you clarify the following statement for me please? "There is no real decoding, except for system adjustment like distance your seated from the speakers." It's the decoding that is what I'm trying to grasp. Are you using decoding in the Digital -> Analogue sense and there is no 5 channel feed or something different? The reason I ask is it seems to me in a multi-channel environment regardless of what the source is sending it, the processor algorithms are what decides what goes to each speaker. That seems to imply the processor is one of the most important pieces in the chain. Following that same logic, makes me wonder why so many claim a mid priced receiver, with sufficient power of course, is all that is needed to get great surround sound.

I guess what I'm trying to figure out is, is it all the processor's interpreted sound fields or something else?

" The reason I ask is it seems to me in a multi-channel environment regardless of what the source is sending it, the processor algorithms are what decides what goes to each speaker." Only with synthesized or matrixed materials. With discrete sources, what is in each channel is decided by the mixing engineer. The only user options are level, delay and bass management. (Well, EQ, too, if you have that facility.)

Kal