Vote

I don't see the need. Mono & stereo are more than adequate. Every multichannel demo I've heard was atrocious!!

Eventually, I'll be interested in multichannel SACDs. Despite all the stories I've read in Stereophile about past audio crimes that have been committed in multichannel, I think the potential exists for multichannel to be done in a way that contributes positively to the musical experience. Granted, multichannel will be harder to do than stereo, but there's no intrinsic reason why stereo is the natural or correct way to do high-quality audio. The only thing holding me back at the moment is the cost of all those extra speakers and extra channels of amplification.

Bel Canto is hot!

I got two ears, eyes, nostrils, etc. and I find two channel tune reproduction, just fine; thank you doctor...doctor...

I have a Meridian 565 (which is great) and I want to get a SACD multi-channel player. A multichannel analog preamp is the only way to go.

I still have no interest in multichannel sound. I would not commit to SACD or DVD-A until we see who the winner is—I still think we have a Beta vs VHS situation here. The only reason we have multichannel is because it will sell new equipment and the industry is telling us to buy it, just because.

It's rather amusing that anyone would want to bother with a multichannel analog preamp. It's really a contradiction in terms, or shall I say in formats? A fine analog preamp, by my definition, is one (tube or transistor) that will play MUSIC through two speakers. A good amp/preamp/frontend/speaker combination is capable of producing aural magic. Those who have not had the fortune of experiencing that spooky magic are typically those who purchase multichannel noise processors. The fact that a preamp is analog is irrelevant. Stay with the tried and true, such as my Audio Research SP11 gem of a preamp. Don't be wooed by an industry that is moving in all directions, but is missing a compass.

Vinyl rules.

At the present time I just can't afford to develop my system into a multichannel set up. Pound for pound, with the budget I have at the moment,I can just barely get the sound quality I need with two channels. Spreading out my budget with more speakers, etc would mean taking a cut in performance quality, and thst's a major no-no!

Firmly in the stereo domain. Even if i wanted, can't afford to buy three more of the same speakers. my current speakers cost USD20,000 a pair. another 3 would cost me another USD30,000 not counting the requiste number of amps. I would rather use a fraction of that and buy more music to listen to!!! There is also a physical aspect to it. Being in Singapore, I live in an apartment that is, by local standards above average in case but certainly considered small in most parts of the US and Canada. Where am I gonna find space to properly set up 5 full range speakers!!! My wife will probably divorce me first. STEREOphile - Singapore.

If they keep the price/performance reasonable, it would solve the problem of integrating the new multi-channel players and media into an existing home theatre or listening setup

I'm still spending money on my 2-channel system, so multi channel is along way off for me. Another factor is the fact that it would cost a small fortune to go multi channel at the same quality level as my 2 channel rig, this would probably cause me to go with a seperate multi channel system mainly for movies, and set up in another room.

I have neither the space nor any interest in multi channel right now. That could change in the future, but I wouldn't be interested in two multi channel systems. I can safely say I would never buy an analog mutli channel preamp.

Still prefer high-end stereo over the confusing multichannel scene which, furthermore, lacks in attractive software and pricing.

None what so ever. I have absolutely no interest in this or any type of multi-channel product. I very much enjoy and prefer two channel stereo.

All of my music is two channel.

The next big purchase I'm saving for is a new phono box and a turntable. None of the records I own are mixed in 5.1 and I prefer listening to music to watching TV. Stereo systems are integral components for reproducing music, surround sound is simply a peripheral add-on for TV.

I love music, and that means listening to music through the day, often while cooking and doing other household chores. How many channels there are, the "sweet spot," etc, are rather unimportant for me (and my wife and children) compared with the stunning pace and musicality I get from my Sondek/Akito/Rohmann and Naim CD 3.5/Flatcap2. To achieve the standard I am used to in more than two channels would involve a frankly ridiculous expense, especially considering that we are a family that buys nothing on credit. I think that it must be American easy credit that keeps the ultra high end afloat at all, let alone good multichannel. As for DVD video—we have had a little Sony Trinitron with "wide sound" for several years. Imagination fills in the rest—again consciously "drawing a line" with regard to the immense possibilities available now technologically, even though we are very comfortably off!

Digital or analog—the fact remains that multichannel sound is still cacaphonous.

This year's geek junk for this year's junkie geeks.

Limited budget. I'd rather have a higher quality two channel system.

Though not really ready for the multichannel revolution, when it comes time to replace my two-channel preamp I suppose it makes sense to plan for the future. But I want tone controls (at least filters) and mode control, doggone it!

It is difficult enough trying to scrape together the cash to buy two channels worth of amplification and speakers. How on earth am I ever going to be able to afford three more speakers and a sub? I think I'll stick with stereo and look into the wave of the future in a decade or two!

Digital is the only way to go.

My one piano fills my home quite nicely with sound, why do I need five speakers? Rarely do I confine my listening to one spot. For the same money, I'd rather have top shelf stereo than mid-fi 5.1. Save it for the theater (home or commercial) where one is confined to a seat to view a movie. I don't want to attend a concert every time I listen to tunes, I want Joni or Paul Simon or Arthur Rubinstein IN MY HOUSE.

happy w/ stereo.

Preamps never have interested me, nor has multi-channel sound. Until there is a whole lot of recorded music that can fully take advantage of a higher resolution digital playback system, and at CD prices, I'm not interested in buying any hardware, or software at all.

Prefer to spend my money on good stereo. How many sound engineers will use it wisely, instead of using it just as a gimmick? Apart from re-creating live/concert ambience, what's the point of multichannel?

In the forseable future, I just can not imagine populating my listening room with 4 or more additional spekers.

There are two reasons for my lack of interest. First, if you listen to Nine Inch Nails there is no such thing as a natural soundstage, so ping ponging between six speakers may be fun. If you listen to music played on acoustic instruments, however, there is a "natural" sound that ideally is being captured in the recording process. I think we are years away from recordings truly attempting to use six speakers to capture the natural sound of acoustic musical instruments on a widespread scale (as opposed to using six speakers as a gimmick—guitars in front of you and mandolins behind). Second, most of us have to budget and save for our stereo gear. At a given price point, whether it's $1,000 or $10,000, I have yet to hear a set of five speakers plus subwoofer that reproduces music as well as a carefully selected pair of speakers at the same cost. Applying this to amplifiers, cables, etc, you wind up with lots of lesser quality equipment versus a smaller amount of better quality equipment.