13.2, 5.1 and so on. "the best seat in the house"

A lot depends upon the recording.  Some Multichannel mixes are done vey well, with just a bit of reflection in the rears with a significant gain in ambience.  Try the Pittsburgh Symphony Brahms cycle led by Marek Janowski on the Pentatone label.

The RCA Living Stereo mixes are interesting in 3.0, because many times these are old familiar recordings that were originally recorded in3 channels and then down mixed to 2 channel.

@mahler123 

Bingo, the recording, the engineer, the master tape, it all matters. 
I can remaster stereo recordings in DSD using my Sony TA-ZH1ES DAC.

I can upmix any recording to immersive audio (atmos, auro-3D, DTS, etc) in my processor. I can't make steak out of hamburger but at least I can cook it the way I like, or even eat it raw. :)

I have found 5.1 can sound great for music, but only if the equipment is perfectly matched, and everything is perfectly set up and adjusted...otherwise it sounds terrible...whereas movies it's easy to get good sound, maybe hard to get great sound...but totally different

SACD 5.1 done right is great for music. Especially with orchestral, choral, live recordings. Best scenario with 5 floor standing speakers, 3 power amps, 3 preamps. All same. You can skip the sub, but not the cabling, requires accurate set up and the cost can get really high.

@petg60 

+1 on SACD, the roadblock is the recording. World of difference between a recording remastered for SACD vs one recorded for SACD. Smallish available catalog is another drawback along with cost.

There is a growing catalog of music mastered in atmos which is snowballing. Object based atmos mixes are backward compatible with 2, 5, or 7 channels if you don't have height speakers yet.You can even use headphones.