Pick your poison...2-channel or multi?


This post is just to get a general ideas among audiophiles and audio enthusiasts; to see who really likes what. Here's the catch!

If you were restricted to a budget of $10,000, and wanted to assemble a system, from start to finish, which format would you choose, 2 channel or mulichannel?

I'll go first and say multichannel. I've has to opportunity to hear a multichannel setup done right and can't see myself going back to 2-channel. I'm even taking my system posting down and will repost it as a multichannel system.

So...pick your poison! Which one will it be, 2-channel or multichannel.
cdwallace
It is my opinion you are not an audiophile if your not a two channel guy, period. Multichannel is for movies, nothing more, nothing less. I use a quality surround sound receiver for movies and it does a darn good job there but it sucks for music. The only thing connected to it is a DVD player. I don't even have an antenna attached for FM.
In addition some of you are buying into more channels is better than less when time has proven that two channels for music is superior. I am not surprised since some local hifi dealers reserve more room for multichannel products then they do for two channel, trying to sell as many boxes as they can. Why not, multichannel requires more dollars invested & the majority of Americans are satisfied with mediocre sound. Audiophiles represent a small segment of the population and most are right here on Audiogon. It is obvious that some of you have bought into this fiasco, contributing to the demise of two channel, may regret this later. Support your local two channel dealership, keep multichannel where it belongs, movies only.
Phd: "In addition some of you are buying into more channels is better than less when time has proven that two channels for music is superior."
Time proves nothing nor do such assertions as yours. 2 channel has, since its beginning, been a compromise accepted only because of technical limitations. Now, if you want to assert that, for a given expenditure, you can get higher quality stereo componentry than if you spread that expenditure over 5+ channels, that's logic.

BTW, there's nothing to prevent one from playing stereo discs as two channel on ones multichannel system.

Kal
To summarize my view, in order of importance...

1..A center channel does wonders for imaging of the very-important soloist, vocal or instrument.

2..Surround channels give new dimension (pun) to two types of music.
a. Intimate classical chamber music, or Jazz, where the sonic perspective is that the performers are in the room with you. (As opposed to you being in their room).

b. Antiphonal music (composed for two or more separate choirs or orchestras). There was a lot of this composed in the past, but it fell by the wayside because stereo cannot reproduce it properly.

c. Ambience.

d. Improved sound (especially bass) because the speakers are driven less hard for a given room SPL.
.