Why is 2 Channel better than multi-channel?


I hear that the music fidelity of a multi-channel AV Receiver/Integrated amp can never match the sounds produced by a 2 channel system. Can someone clearly explain why this is so?

I'm planning to upgrade my HT system to try and achieve the best of both worlds, I currently have a 3 channel amp driving my SL, SR, C and a 2 channel amp driving my L and R.
I have a Denon 3801 acting as my pre. Is there any Pre/Proc out there that can merge both worlds with out breaking my bank? Looking for recommendations on what my next logical steps should be? Thanks in advance.
springowl
IMO, indeed. You can posit a lot of numbers and create strawman arguments (cost, bulk) but I do not see any convincing reality-based arguments about the fundamental differences between 2 channel and multichannel. Some of it is fundamentally wrong:
It's roughly the same audible information (15% or 20% at most of the live performance) of the 2-channel but now spread across more than just two speakers.

Same old, same old.

Kal
That's a pretty incredible post, Kr4.

This is just a shot in the dark but you're not involved with one of those new inner-city Toastmaster's summer programs are you? If so, I think it's working.

-IMO
I have no idea what your budget is, but home theater receiver that provides pre-outs for each channel would allow you to get a 2 channel amplifier for your main speakers. My personal opinion is that spending a bunch of money for surround sound speakers is far less important than building your system for 2 channel listening. Movies have a way of shifting the focus from the audio a bit.
Unlike the vast majority of the responses in this thread, at least Stehno ends with IMO. Although I believe his response is a meaningless diatribe of clueless words. He's obviously never heard a quality multichannel SACD recording played back in a quality multichannel system. Like the majority of the two channel proponents in this thread.

IMHO of course.