How could surround sound be used in an audiophile system?

I am an audiophile with a dilemma. I do not like two channel stereo, because the speakers are only 45 degrees apart. This gives me a bad case of tunnel sound. I realize that high end systems have excellent sound dispersal, but only within 45 degrees. That is not enough spread if one is listening to orchestral music. Separation of the speakers gives better sound dispersal, but it leaves a hole in the center. I could place an equally sized speaker in the center powered by an amplifier of equal quality. The problem is that there is no such animal as a three channel preamp with a mono center channel. Next, I would like to use back speakers to smooth out the sound of the front outside speakers. While the three channel stereo has better dispersal, the sound ends too abruptly at the corners of the room. This now would require a five channel preamp (two left signals, two right signals, and mono center).

I know, I know, this sounds like home theater. However, home theater processors are notorious for distorting sound as they "interpret" where different parts of the two channel signals are positioned. Even more distortion is added as the processor adds reverberation.

My goal is to have a pure sounding system that fills the whole room with the undistorted sound of an orchestra. I would like to be able to pin point every instrument in the orchestra from one side of the room to the other. What I need is a five channel preamp with a mono center channel. The problem is that this preamp does not exist, and never will. The artificial sound of five channel home theater is here to stay. This is really depressing. This is a real dilemma. Does anyone have any ideas how to solve this problem?
A bit of a stretch on my part, saying that you can't get soundstaging etc. with just two speakers. Should have said that with a lot of dry recordings, early CDs, inauspicious room conditions, mono recordings and the like, the JVC XL Z 1010 can provide a significant improvement in the listening experience. As I indicated, the option is always there to take it out of the system and use it as and when required only. I still feel that additional speakers for ambiance is a good thing. How the whole thing can be implemented is another issue altogether. I agree on one point however: with two channel stereo there simply is less to screw up. Again, though, if we step back every time we are faced with more complex solutions, we would all still be listening in mono with horns and the like. I can see the question better now that I have taken a look at the home theatre front, centre channel and all. Moreover, in looking at SACD players and, more specifically, at the Philips 1000, and reading the literature available on line, I realise that all is not as simple as I first thought. Philips indicates the use of six identical speakers: I now understand the misgivings of a lot of people in the audio press. Six speakers would almost invariably mean six mediocre ones. Also, what the hell are they going to put on the additional tracks that requires more than small ambiance speakers driven with low power amps? Does give one pause, no? I do see the (and I use the term loosely) corrupting influence of home theatre on audio only systems. The problems with inventory in numerous formats is well documented and was the main factor having brought down quad so many years ago. I understand that the technology is apparently there in these two layer discs to insure a level of compatibility. At this point, I think what I am favouring is actually ambience synthesis, obviously in the digital domain, which listeners can use as and when they want, over some overbearing, ham fisted, un-defeatable system that is imbedded in the recording itself. Unfortunately, the window of opportunity seems to have closed on such systems, firstly by the advent of 5.1 HT and, secondly, coming, despite the nay sayers, to stores near you, by the multi-channel SACD format. It's too bad that the technology, pioneered by Audio Pulse many years ago and vastly improved by JVC, Lexicon and, I guess, Yamaha, will never be developed into a fully mature and generally accepted system. So, Subaruguru, you have a valid point, good two channel systems do image, but there is room for improvement by adding more channels. How many more, where in the room to install the extra speakers and what to put through these are the obvious questions. I do hope it's not going to be dopey effects, but something more subtle which, in fact, would create the apparent sound field of actual famous venues. Yes, good two channel does beat annoying poorly conceived and set-up multi-channel systems, but the times are a changin'... lets hope for the better.
To redwoodgarden, here's what I do. get a cheap DD surround processor (Onkyo, Sony or other Japanese). run your 5 channels from the processor to your amps. Now if you have a passive box, run your front speakers into the amp and connect with monster cable dual female connectors. Voila, turn on the processor for movie sound and shut off processor and use passive box or other output switcher for two channel.
Subaruguru, great post. I have achieved similar results with a pair of tweaked out MGIIIA's in a large room. Incredible soundstaging and much more natural to my ears than the "forced" soundstaging of most of the multichannel systems I have heard. Regards.
subaruguru gave the essence of what I was going to say

A well setup two channel setup is much superior to the compromises of HT. I have a pair of Von Schweikert Vortex Screens that just disappear in my room with soundstage well behind and outside their setup.

I sold hifi in the early 80's and recall the ADS time delay system, quite nice for it's time for a deep room.

Redwoodgarden - you owe it to yourself to audition some excellent speakers that truly image.