Vote

I need to hear a surround system sound better than the two channed systems that have set the standard for me. I am still waiting

Good two-channel, listened to in the nearfield can be wonderful. No need for sound in back.

If it's recorded in two channel, hear it in two channel. If the recipe says serves two, feeding to five will only result in disappointment. There's no room for compromise in quality audio unless you put effects before soundstage and high fidelity.

I've yet to hear a comparably priced multi-channel system sound as satisfying (overall) as a multi-channel system.

If you have more than two (front-channel) speakers, forget about real stereo imaging. Beware the Bose 901 syndrome! For sonic excellence, try Duntech speakers such as the Statesman model, they are all I need for fantastic sound, whether audio or video applications.

It's hard enough getting room acoustics working well with just 2 speakers!

I'm looking forward to DVD-Audio, but I hope it's primarily a two channel format.

I use my 2-channel system for home theatre as well, so the answer should be 'I already have added more speakers to my 2 channel system'. Of course, in 2-channel mode, the path is as straight as possible and doesn't pass through any home theatre processors.

With more than two speakers the optimization of the interfacing of the sound radiators with the ambience becomes a very very complex problem

If you have more channels, and you still want good sound, not only do you have to buy more speakers, but they all have to be very nice, this could double the price of speakers while still giving you the same quality sound.

I'll wait and see. In the meantime,there are several questions to be answered. 1. How much would it cost? 2. How much rearrangement of my living room would be required? 3. How much more of a buzz will I get? Right now, the answers seem to be: (1) at least $3,000 for new source, amplification, and rear speakers; (2) Living room? You don't need a living room. (3) That much (said as if holding up a single strand of human hair).

It's already done. Went "home theatre" earlier this year, and I've never been happier with the sound.

As long as I can get two better channels for the price of five lesser ones, it is going to be hard to convince me. Not to mention all of the extra cables, etc.. If video is part of the deal, I am suprised that no one has pointed out that an A/V system can only be used for one at a time, and the entire family has to go along.

No matter how much money you have to spend, you almost always get better sound from one excellent pair of speakers then from multi speakers. You also will not have more wire to mess up the sound and more trouble with ideal placement all of the speakers when listening. Another problem is the inconsistancy of placement of the microphones when the record companies are recording. Studio recordings where the sound stage is artificial already sound bad with just two speakers. I expect some DVD recordings to sound great and others to sound bad just like CD's today. Multi speakers will just make bad sounding DVDs like mud.

My source material is all two-channel classical recordings. Two speakers are quite adequate.

I don't really see the point of surround sound for live recordings (classical, jazz, etc.). The sound is supposed to come from in front of you so surround speakers aren't necessary (would anyone want to listen to music from the perspective of the bassoonist?). I don't think they are really needed to add ambiance to the sound either (how many people actually use the artificial ambiance effects on their surround processors?). Granted surround speakers can help reproduce the few concerts that have instruments behind you (audience concerto?). So surround sound is going to be used for pop recordings and the evergrowing market for authentic carousel music. Given the recording quality of typical music with guitars spinning around the room, I don't expect it to crowd my CD rack in the near furure. But then again, since my music system doubles as a home theater, maybe I'll actually find a surround sound music recording worth buying.

Two ears, two speakers. Makes perfect sense to me.

Six channels for TV/movies---Yes!!! But for my music system? NO WAY!!! Stereo music was meant to be listened to with two channels. Besides,as audiophiles, isn't our quest to get that perfect sound from two speakers? Think about it . . .

Multichannel sound would have to be beyond belief {for me} to spend additional dollars on more amps, speakers, software, and other odds and ends. I will not say "never," but "extremely unlikely"!! Plus, the wife might have the family jewels pickled if I bought more equipment.

Unfortunately I'm not interested - my bank balance won't let me add more quality speaker, amplifiers etc. Also haven't got enough room. OK - I am interested! But can't yet!!!!!

When 2 channel stereo is perfected at a reasonable price, then I'll think about 5 channel music.

Because audio history teaches us that some products will be successful and some will be DCC/MD, I must join the ranks of those who silently pray that the new format soon becomes affordable sonic nirvana, and let rich dudes first ride the crapshoot.

I have more speakers! I have more amps! Bring it ON!!!!

I would have to hear the difference.

So maybe multichannel DVDs can sound good. Then maybe some folks buy them. Then prospective listeners will need multichannel DVD players and preamps, more amps, more speakers, and more kilo-to-mega-to-gigabuck interconnects and speaker wires. This multichannel DVD concept sounds like a sales gimmick for audio-gear manufacturers. (Can anybody still spell quadraphonic??)

The effort and expense to achieve good sound from two channels is enough. I don't even want to think about the problems more channels would create. I would rather hear better recordings, resolution- and soundstaging-wise.

I played with four-channel stereo 25 years ago and it sounded fake. Surround-sound is good for video applications, but has no place in high-end stereo unless you want to feel like a performer rather than a listener.

I am still trying to afford good amplification for two channels, let alone 5.1 channels.

I'm moving to DTS as I type. Can't wait to see what the artists can do with it.

suround sound is excellent and worth the investment as long as you get good equipment but I would still prefer the normal stereo for playing music