Vote

At some point in the past, I had a surround sound system, but I found that my stereo system was more involving. If money was no object, I could be persuaded to try it again, but until that time I will stick to my two-channel system.

I enjoy listening to music in both two-channel and hi-rez surround.

After living with a 7.1 channel system for a few years, I am happily back to two-channel and have no intention to go multichannel again. Alan Blumlein was right.

For two-channel it's the Mac with no sub. For multichannel it's the Pioneer Elite for the center and surrounds, with Mac running the fronts.

Space, budget, and family constraints dictate that my system do double duty—which probably provides the most benefit for the most family members. Maybe when I get older and more curmudgeonly, I'll be able to retreat to a listening room with a solitary chair for "serious" listening.

My philosophy has always been that I can buy a better two-channel system with any given amount of money. Besides, I don't know where I'd put the other speakers, and the extra cables would be a real headache.

My answer is "only" two-channel and short of an unforeseen inheritance followed by an unwelcome epiphany, it always will be.

I have yet to attain the wisdom of Sakuma san and revert to mono, but this 5.1 and 7.1 stuff is for movies, not music.

I don't care about "home theater." When I watch a film, it's almost exclusively for the story. It's the script that matters, not the surround sound effects. The same analogy applies to music. Do you really want the drummer behind your armchair?

Does both 2-ch stereo and 5-ch home theater. Preamp does not have 6-ch input for SACD,DVD-A

I would like to see more multichannel music and equipment reviews.

All the time! Music is just as important to me as movies and the sound of a movie is just as important as the sound of the music.

Releases of multichannel music may have slowed down, but I have yet to see a new movie released in Dolby stereo.

I have two different systems. The HT is, mostly, for my kids and my baby. The two channel set-up is in another room where I'm the king.

I traded in my "Grand Prix Award" winning stereo receiver for the newest Dolby 5.1 surround sound amp back in 1989. I could never get back to that "edge" I once had. I still miss that old two channel amp.

Purist audiophiles don't mix two channels music with multi channels intended for video sounds. Further multi channels amplifiers are not designed for stereo and are generally lower grade compared to main stream 2 channels amplifiers.

I have three systems. My main is a multi-use system. My kids have their XBox 360 system (with an Onkyo receiver that does double-duty), and a 20 year old Proton system that does stereo work.

In purchasing the new Revel Ultima Salon2 speakers for music reproduction and with how great they sound, so with being a movie lover also, it was an easy choice to go ahead and add the Voice and Gems to provide a wonderful surround experience.

a serious 2 channel for music and a 5.1 for movies

I have a dedicated 2 channel system consisting of Thiels, Bryston amp and pre, Sony SACD, and Logitech transporter. My 5.1 home theater is Definitve Technology Soundbar and sub, Outlaw Audio amp and pre, PS3, and oppo dvd, and Tivo with 46" Sony XBR6.

I use my system for both two- and multi-channel listening of SACDs/CDs, and Blu-Ray and DVD movies. Works for both without too many compromises.

Because of space issues my 2 channel and ht systems share the same room. However, I have separate 2 channel preamp and ht prepro although both system share front l and r speakers and power amp.

I have a dedicated 2 channel system plus two other systems if I want to listen to multi-channel SACD's etc.

I think I like movies because I like music and the same in reverse. I enjoy seeing my two-channel setup flex as much as my surround sound.

Not a significant enough increase in the sound quality to justify the additional cost of 6 speakers and a sub. I put my money instead toward a real good pair of "full range" speakers and am much more satisfied than I would be with six decent ones.

Bedroom – Stereo Office – Stereo Living Room – Killer Stereo with 6.1 as an afterthought. Stereo uses reference caliber electronics and speakers. The 6.1 uses the LF and RF pre-outs from a modest Cambridge Audio RX thru my preamps Theater bypass to drive my big mains. The center and three rears and sub are very modest models driven by the CA’s built in amps. Video is a 1080P projector with a wall mounted screen (nothing screws up stereo more than having a big TV sitting between the speakers). With Blu-ray and HD satellite as the sources. For music it’s strictly 2 channels for me. Back in the late 90’s and early 00’s I had a big very high end 5.1 channel system, properly set up (rare) that was great for movies ( not terribly important to me.), but all of the 5.1 channel music discs (DTS CD’s, SACD’s, DVDA’s) that I listened to ultimately sounded gimmicky. The novelty of multichannel music quickly wore off. I guess I’m just a 2-channel kind of listener.

LPs, SACDs, DVD-Audios, DVD-Videos and high resolution downloads all in two-channel stereo. I am not a fan of multi-channel, preferring two-channel stereo even for movies where the phantom center has more precise imaging than a real center channel speaker with a CRT tube TV as the speaker must be above or below the TV and this does not sound natural when the left and right speakers are at ear and visual level. Three channel might work if I had a transparent projection screen and the center speaker in the exact center behind the screen. But no rears I don't like rear channels even just for ambiance. With 2 channel properly set up the soundstage is wide and deep and there is ambiance all around the listening room. So why is multi-channel necessary?

2 channel ONLY. Most people can't set up two channels correctly, let alone 5, 7, 9, or whatever.