Why is 2 Channel better than multi-channel?

hi guys
i am not too expierenced with ht.i want to keep it a 2 ch. system,i was wondering if you can help me set it up,i am looking for best sound and picture quality.the system i have is vandy5a`s,quickie4v`s monos.arc sp16l pre,and cary 306/200 cdp,panasonic dvd-35 and panasonic ct-36sx12.by running through the cary does that help with sound.my question is what is the best way to go about this venture with best results.
thank you very much
al

Kal,
I'm still a bit confused. When you talk about the recording engineer deciding what goes to each individual channel, are you strictly talking about multi-channel recordings like DVD-A and SACD? I was thinking more along the lines of regular old redbook CD and running that through the processor for 2,3,5, etc. channel playback.

Thanks
Brad

Yes, exactly. Running Redbook through a processor is highly variable as there are many different processors, only some of which permit user intervention. In fact, I don't really consider that multichannel (well, it is multichannel output but the info is not). Of these, favorite is Meridian's TriField.

Kal (who denies the premise of this entire thread)

Greetings fellow Agoners.While I tried to read as many of the responses that I could I'm sure that I missed a few so if anyone else covered this aspect I'm sorry.While it's true that the majority of multi channel studio recordings(SACD,DVD-A) have been mixed inproperly, where multi channel music TRUELY pulls ahead of stereo is in the reproduction of recorded LIVE music.I am a live music fan & the majority(about 70%) of my over 300 Redbook/SACD/DVD-A discs are live recordings.My library also contains at last count 135 concert dvd's.While most of these live recordings where done as stereo recordings, post processing has opened up EVERY one of them to the point where disbelief can be suspended & the ILLUSION of actually being part of the crowd is as easy as closing my eyes.Yes,while a good 2 channel system provides a reasonable renditon of these performances they never provide the truely expansive illusion that the multi channel playback provides.And with almost all concert dvd's being remixed under the close supervision of the original recording artist the studio engineers are finally starting to understand how multi channel should be used to extract direct & indirect information so as to put the viewer in the middle of the concert crowd(& NOT the band).While studio recordings will probably always sound best from a 2 channel system(due to the LIMITED spatial information inherent in the recording process),there is no doubt in my mind what so ever that any recording done live,wheather a live cd recording or concert dvd,can only be appreciated at it's absolute best with a properly matched & set up multi channel system.I guess it all boils down to what what the majority of your listening tastes are.If your a solo listener who locks into a sweet spot for the duration of an intimate recording of a chamber ensemble or jazz singer it's likely that you will never appreciate the true magic of multi channel.If however you are like me, & revel in the live concert,be it the San Francisco Symphony Orchestra recorded live at Daly City Symphony Hall or AC/DC recorded live at Donnington Castle then the future is multi channel & I for one will be there every step of the way!

Anyone thinking about getting an SACD player..., do it! An SACD and decent SACD player does sound better than a Red Book CD and decent player.

In fact, there's quite a few SACDs that are two and three channel. You get to hear the highly regarded RCA Living Stereo SACDs the way the original records were recorded back in the 50's-early 60's.

They were all recorded in either 2 or 3 channel. If you have a center channel speaker that's equivalent to your front speakers, the three channel SACDs will sound fantastic. They actually used three microphones when recording, one for each side and one for the center.