How can you not have multichannel system

Roger Waters and band performed the entire Dark Side of the Moon.

Do you have Roger Water's Amused to Death done on his home studio using Q sound and ATC's? It is two channel but fun.

As the originator of this thread I appreciate your thoughtful criticisms and comments. The ending although it may seem bitter, was not, as it was somewhat out of order, and basically, representing two tired voices. I believe the debate died a natural death with both sides admirably articulating their respective positions until there was nothing more to say. I also believe you are correct as to the insertion of sarcasm in a debate online when the parties involved do not face each other.

I have gone both ways, and with pretty well set up 5.1 channel systems (all Wison, BMW, Totem speakers - obviously at different times - all speakers same brand). Various amps (all Krell, Theta Dreadnaught II [aweful for 2 channel], Contrad Johnson and others). Good pre/pros (latest Krell, McIntosh, others). Always REL subs. I guess I am saying that I really gave it an honest effort.

Sometimes, but rarely it was great, most the time it felt artificial. This probably has a lot to do with two things: the material/mixing/peformance and secondly my room. Movies were certainly entertaining, more so than with 2-channel movies.

But in the end, I decided to go back to 2-channel for a more pleasureable music listening experience - when I want to sit down and be immersed in the music.

I now have 2-channel in one room and 5.1 in the TV room (via inwall Polk Speakers, Pioneer Elite receiver and Oppos DVD player). The room looks a lot better, the performance is not as good, but I still enjoy it immensely for movies (which are few and infrequent by me, more common by the family).

Surround is great, occassionally, when it is set up right, but too often I found it less pleasing than with 2-channel.

So I see both points, but to me the greatest weakness in surround is still the lack of quality media.

I think 5.1/7.1 is great for movies and for hearing the audience clapping on concert DVD's. But for music, it is 2 channel more all the way. In addtion, I am in the camp that preaches do you prefer blondes, brunetts or redheads, who cares, I love them all.

Dear Mig007,
Damn, wish I had a Username like that. I have always complained about the limitations of 2-Channel CD/SACD/DVD-Audio, in comparison to Analog Records. I never really was a big fan of Multi-speaker Surround Sound for Music either. I have heard DVD-Audio Surround Sound Downmixed to 2-Channels by a Pioneer DV-58AV. I don't get the nasty Surround Sound Effect, instead what I get is a Soundstage that approaches 95% of what I can get by Record. It almost sounds like a Record. It has Harmonic Content and Decay that seems to trail off into infinity. The images have a very real holographic, fleshed out sound approaching that of a good Record. If the 2-Channel Digital isn't getting the job done when compared to Analog Records, I certainly believe that Multi-Channel Digital Downmix to 2-Channels can provide whats missing. If utilized properly, this might be the way to get all of the Musical content that is missing from 2-Channel Digital. It won't be as good as a Record, but it could close the gap by leaps and bounds. I believe that it is certainly worth pursuing, regardless if you are Multi-Channel or strickly 2-Channel only.