MultiChannel too complicated for most...

Do 2channel only audiophiles shun multichannel (discrete or DSP based) because they find it too complicated?

I'm with Paracrine.

Audiophiles are normal people that want something differentiated for their music system, they are not immune to the logic of purity and simplicity, which is a marketing spin that is pushed heavily by the high end manufacturers. Often this is all about how high end audio chooses to differentiate; popular manifestations are designs with LESS features than low end audio and by packaging this in an impressive, imposing product with a new model number each year or two, and few, if any, LED lights/displays (synonymous with low end). These clearly visible external features and new model number are intended to be correlated by the buyer to the hidden significantly differentiated sound of the box/component. This all combines to propagate the widely held view that a DSP can't possibly play two channel as well as a dedicated two channel amp.

Tbg and Jmcgrogan,

I agree that multi-channel music often leaves a lot to be desired. Concert DVD's are often a mixed bag. However many of todays compressed CD's leave a lot to be desired too...so not all recordings are great, even in stereo.

IMHO, the first problem is NOT multi-channel as a concept but poor quality unbalanced systems (either a full set of very cheap multi-channel speakers or a hodge podge of speakers with some completely inappropriate rear speakers and sub compared to fantastic main speakers - no wonder multi-channel sounds no better or even worse than stereo). I believe the second problem is producer's budget and studios. Stereo mixing and mastering is easy or "cookie cutter" after 50 years of music recording; engineers are still mostly inept/inexperienced at surround sound and trained to master an entire stereo CD in a few hours for very little pay. Producers are used to this approach and are rarely willing to spend the necessary money to produce a decent surround sound for a music DVD.

How did I come to these conclusions? Simple, I just listen to any big budget movie sound track and it is comletely obvious that high quality surround sound done with a proper budget (often taking weeks/months of audio engineering) can be absolutely amazing! If you don't have a decent surround system then just go to a high end movie theater and you can appreciate the quality potential of surround sound. (BTW: Movie DVD recording standards are very DIFFERENT than CD's - CD's get abused and compressed to sound loud as there are NO recording level standards for a CD whereas movie soundtracks preserve dynamic range and realism as there are standards for recording levels like THX etc.)

I am convinced that a surround system with matched speakers of similar quality to the mains can sound awesome on a good mix. Far better and more realistic than stereo.

Unfortunately most peope are not prepared to invest properly in surround speakers and therefore criticise the format as being inferior. Why do I feel justified in making thes ecomments? Because I use a pair of ATC SCM 20's driven by a Bryston 4B for rear surround speakers - a $6,000+ rear surround speaker setup that many would find quite acceptable as MAIN speakers.

I won't be baited into this [MC] fiasco

A fiasco?

2-channel, vinyl and tubes rule.

Of course they do.