surround processor?

Somehow the language got so distorted people think Home Theater means Multichannel. This was a Jedi mind trick. Does "home" mean multi-channel? What about "theater"? So how did "home theater" come to mean dogmatically multi-channel? 

Discuss among yourselves. I already know the answer.

To follow up on MC, I have been deeply involved it the creation of world class multi channel HT where just the room was $250K ++.
Especially so, I have never considered any other than two channel.
To create an audiophile level HT indeed takes hundreds of thousands. Not to mention a LOT of complex gear. And unless there is a room within a room for proper speaker placement, there are a LOT of speakers scattered around the room and a LOT of cabling.
And even in the above mentioned HTs, the cabling and speakers are not what I consider to be SOTA, audiophile level. And even the amplification is not at that level. Personally, I am quite happy with my quality 2.1 channel system for Audio and HT. 

Skepticism about mixing 2-channel with multi-channel makes me think it must be imagined that a balanced connection to a preamp input set to by-pass somehow corrupts the preamp when it is used for 2-channel even when the input and the source for that input, i.e., the processor, are both inactive.  Seems like the magical thinking that's all too common in audiophilia.

It is not skepticism. If you would bother to read you would know it is experience. Skepticism is theoretical. What someone thinks. Experience is actual, what actually happened. In this case my actual experience was the exact opposite of my expectations. Any skepticism I may have had was being skeptical stereo could do the job. It was only after two full years of trying all kinds of multi-channel solutions that I came to the conclusion multi-channel is a marketing ploy and a fool's game. The primary goal of multi-channel is to sell more stuff. At this it is an unparalleled success.

Magical thinking is when you invent a narrative and then try to pretend reality will somehow bend to match your fantasy. When you do this, which you just did, psychologists call it projection.

This is especially apparent in light of your post following immediately on the heels of Mglik, an industry professional and audiophile who just corroborated everything I have been saying. Please, read what is written. Respond to what exists. Don't deny reality, go making stuff up, and then have the temerity to say the other guy is "magical thinking". 

I too believed that 13 channel home theatre systems were excessive and unnecessary, but after experiencing the additional channels I discovered they do enhance movie experience irrespective of room size as they provide a smooth transgression, rather than jumping from speaker to speaker.

What I fail to comprehend is how and why dedicated stereo system are always assumed to be better than home theatre systems in stereo mode. Home theatre systems have decent DACs and by selecting stereo mode the multi channel processing is removed.

Could it be that as soon as multi speakers are observed there is an automatic assumption the sound is always going to be inferior? It just seems irrational and I hope someone can explain it. Perhaps the issue is with the word theatre as sound in theatres is always a compromise.