How can you not have multichannel system

I don't like it as well. I have owned/listened to/auditioned many multichannel systems, and found that I liked stereo much better.

Fewer moving parts, and in most cases the music was recorded with the express purpose of reproducing it in stereo, I think that makes a difference.

I own both the SACD and 180g Vinyl versions of "Filmore" by the Allman Brothers. I would take the warm lifelike sound of the vinyl any day. The SACD is great, as are many other well done SACD's, but it just never jumped for me the way vinyl in stereo does, even when I owned an excellent (which I no longer do) multidisc player.

I love multi-channel for movies, it's a great gimmick. Truth be told, when I help friends set up home systems now, unless they have a dedicated theater room, or the rear speakers are already wired, I have them set up 3.1 systems. Never had anyone complain about it, in fact with the sophistication of the new recievers, they sound just as good in most cases as a system with surround speakers.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

the number of channels is less important than what is fed into them. multi channel does not solve the problem of mediocre components and problem recordings.

placing such emphasis upon multi channel is misplaced. the concern should be on recordings, preamps, amps, cable and speakers.

i dare say, a master analog tape pleyd through a $300 personal stereo (i have one) will sound better than any multi channel stereo that uses a cd as its source.

Mrtennis, I just returned from CES and heard the Pass/Kimber system. Only TAG Model Ones were used. For the first time on this limited number of recording did I find multichannel at all appealing. Of course, in this room you would have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to achieve the sound.

They were TAD Model Ones, not TAG. FWIW.

Kal