why do people like 2.0 channel so much???

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Some people like steak sauce on their steak. That's fine. It doesn't so much add to the taste of the streak so much as hide it but, hey, that's your steak, not mine. It'll take just a little salt and pepper, just enough to bring out the natural flavor, thank you.

Virtually all my music was mixed down to two channels for the final product. Nothing, I repeat, nothing will be able to accurately separate it down into it's original element in the proper placement, assuming it had one to begin with.

Besides, in virtually every music event I've been to, the music eminated from in front to me. Now, I do pick up spatial clues from the sides and rear but, on the whole, the music is in the front.

Unfortunely 2 channel stereo cannot represent spaital cues from the side or rear, and these cues are as much apart of the "live" experience as the frontal information. In the absence of such cues, the live experience would sound dull, flat, and one deminsional just like two channel would in a completely damped room.

Now that we are CLOSER(not there yet) to being able to recreate the ambience of the hall in its right spatial place(which sounds closer to real life) the only arguement two channel supporters have is "I have a huge library of two channel media" which keeps them solidly in the two channel mode.

[nobody]

I'm a stereo guy for a few reasons.

First off, like mentioned I have tons of two channel recordings. I haven't the time, money or desire to replace a few thousand LPs and CDs with multichannel recordings.

Secondly, while I'm fully ready to believe that multi channel can be better, I haven't really heard much evidence that most current multi-channel stuff is. I'm not willing to spend a bunch of money on a multi-channel system for a handful of recordings that are very well done for the format.

Third is cost and practicality. I can afford to buy two decent speakers, but buying five good speakers and a sub, plus amplification for them all gets too rich for my blood. I could maybe sell my stereo and swing one of those home theater in a box systems, but those sound way worse than what I listen to now through two channels. Then you've got to fill your room with speakers, unless you wanna use the little cube things, and again then, the sound ends up being worse than what I've got.

So, yeah I can understand how theoretically multi channel can be better. I'm just not convinced that from a practical standpoint it is better for me right now.

[hermanv]

I have a surround system consisting of a NAD receiver ($1,700 list) and 5 speakers ($4,100 list) so I'm hardly in the lowest cost club. I use this system for my home theater and it performs quite well. Like anyone would be, I was curious and played several 2 channel CDs both in stereo and in "simulated" suround. I also played one (count 'em one) DVD-A disk.

My problem is that at least at the price point of my surround system, the sound quality is nowhere near my main stereo. Now I spent a little over double on my main system so the comparison is not exactly fair, but when I built my surround system I tried hard to find ways to upgrade my two channel to multi channel. I did this in an attempt to avoid duplication of money being spent.

In spite of any appearances based on my system cost I am financially lower middle class. I have streched my budget over many years in order to own equipment as nice as I own. So the impetus to combine systems to save money was real. I was never able to find equipment that could cleanly combine my two and multichannel systems with same or simular sound quality (this was about 5 years ago, there seem to be somewhat more options today).

As near as I can tell, for equivalent sound quality, the price per channel is more or less fixed. So good 5 or 6 channel sound will cost you 2.5 to 3 times the cost of good 2 channel sound. I for one, can't afford it.

[hermanv]

As near as I can tell, for equivalent sound quality, the price per channel is more or less fixed. So good 5 or 6 channel sound will cost you 2.5 to 3 times the cost of good 2 channel sound. I for one, can't afford it.

Neat eh? You can quote yourself, probably reduces disagreement.

We went all the way around and back to page 1.

In the end we talked about the quality of the musical experience and while multi-channel adds somthing two channel can not accomplish, for a given cost it seems many here would choose clean, good quality sound over more spatial information. I believe that reasonably answers the original posters question "Why do people like 2.0 channel so much???"

If and when the multi channel cost drops to allow equivalent quality vs two channel with the same total cost, many will switch. I might switch sooner if that lottery number comes in.

[shokhead]

I dont belive anyone would say,lets see,2.0 is cheaper so thats it for me. Sir T has it right,most HT does 2.0 just fine and just as good as a seperate 2.0 system.

[hermanv]

For my HT system I have a 5 year old NAD driving two Dahlquist fronts, the combined cost (of only the 2 channel part) was nearly centered in the 4 digit range so I didn't cheap out. This system in 2 channel mode doesn't pass muster compared to my main stereo system in sound quality (worse, it's not a hard call)

Now my main did cost more admitted, but I tried quite hard to consolidate and simply could not afford the cash to add more channels without damaging the two I had. 5 years ago "cut through" pre-amps didn't exist.

So I don't think I agree. There is the caveat that I most certainly have not heard every possible HT system available but the better processors are megabuck devices and the HT receiver/decoders I've heard just won't do the 2 channel job I've come to expect.

The Dahlquists were "leftovers" from an upgrade helping my decision, but I assume we are talking about what someone should buy starting with no existing baggage.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

For my HT system I have a 5 year old NAD driving two Dahlquist fronts, the combined cost (of only the 2 channel part) was nearly centered in the 4 digit range so I didn't cheap out. This system in 2 channel mode doesn't pass muster compared to my main stereo system in sound quality (worse, it's not a hard call)

Now my main did cost more admitted, but I tried quite hard to consolidate and simply could not afford the cash to add more channels without damaging the two I had. 5 years ago "cut through" pre-amps didn't exist.

So I don't think I agree. There is the caveat that I most certainly have not heard every possible HT system available but the better processors are megabuck devices and the HT receiver/decoders I've heard just won't do the 2 channel job I've come to expect.

The Dahlquists were "leftovers" from an upgrade helping my decision, but I assume we are talking about what someone should buy starting with no existing baggage.

I don't think you have heard enough receivers nor are all good stand alone process all that expensive. You guys look at your 2.0 systems as investments, why wouldn't you look at a 5.1 system the same way. I did, and the cost of my system didn't break the bank either. If you do your homework(listening) purchasing a good 5.1 system can be about the same price as alot of good high end two channel system.

[Arturo7]

If you do your homework(listening) purchasing a good 5.1 system can be about the same price as alot of good high end two channel system.

Don't really want to pick on you TT. You have brought up quite a few excellent points about MC that I have never considered. But I've got to call BS on this particular statement. Source equipment aside, let's assume you've got $10,000 to spend on the speaker/amplifier part of your system. 10 grand divided by two channels buys a helluva lot more quality than 10 grand divided by six channels.

[abstracta]

Unfortunely 2 channel stereo cannot represent spaital cues from the side or rear, and these cues are as much apart of the "live" experience as the frontal information.

So what? I listen to the music the way the recording engineer intended it to be listened to. Not some egghead at Yamaha using a cheap DSP processor to add sound delays and distortion to mimmick what my living room might sound like if it were Yankee Stadium.

The majority of recording specific material, and that's like, 99.98% of the market, is two channel. The fancy surround modes in your $300 Sony Receiver do not extract magical sound channels that the engineer put there to hide from 2-channel audio enthusiast. It only makes up what it thinks might sound like multi channel recordings. If the engineer doesn't put that information there in the first place, I have no desire to listen to it, got it?

Again, unless I'm watching an Eagles or Sting concert on DVD, and there's native 5/7.1 information I'l be happy to pipe it through my surrounds. I'm otherwise not having some mass produced IC board *invent* what's not there. Best analogy I can think of is taking your favorite family picture to the closest novelty store, and have them apply that plastic diffraction laminate used to make your Scooby Doo lunchbox look 3-dimensional. Cheesy and Fake? I feel the same way about pumping 2-channel music through something that invents sound delays and channels that weren't there in the first place.

To be honest, the only really good high quality multi channel sound I've ever heard is from Delos Labs.

[markw]

Unfortunely 2 channel stereo cannot represent spaital cues from the side or rear, and these cues are as much apart of the "live" experience as the frontal information. In the absence of such cues, the live experience would sound dull, flat, and one deminsional just like two channel would in a completely damped room.

Now that we are CLOSER(not there yet) to being able to recreate the ambience of the hall in its right spatial place(which sounds closer to real life) the only arguement two channel supporters have is "I have a huge library of two channel media" which keeps them solidly in the two channel mode.

If and whan they come out with recorded music with a realistic front channel spread and only the intended ambiance clues from the rear, rthen I'll jump on the bandwagon. That's what will make multi channel a permanant resident in my house for music. I'm not one for having insturments and artifacts swirling around me, except for perhaps an intended evvent.

But, If you are saying that I can use some sort of precessor the accurately recreate that ambiance from a two channel recording, well, I'll have to say that so far it ain't happenin'.

[shokhead]

I got 5 speakers and dam gumit,i'm listening to all of them. I wonder what happens to the sound at a concert after it passes by you? Are you 2 channel old fashion guys pissed when you go to a concert and the have a stack of speakers set up in the back? Ever wonder why at a concert hall the guys playing are spread out across the stage and not long ways more in the middle? I kinda always felt music doesnt hit you in the face and disappear,it surrounds you.

[nightflier]

I got 5 speakers and dam gumit,i'm listening to all of them. I wonder what happens to the sound at a concert after it passes by you? Are you 2 channel old fashion guys pissed when you go to a concert and the have a stack of speakers set up in the back? Ever wonder why at a concert hall the guys playing are spread out across the stage and not long ways more in the middle? I kinda always felt music doesnt hit you in the face and disappear,it surrounds you.

First of all there is a substantial difference between a "chip-produced" 5.1 channel mix and a recording that was designed for 5.1 analog from the start. Take for example Blue-Man's DVD. It was designed from the outset to be a surround sound experience that would give the closest possible impression of their concert experience. While Yes and Pink Floyd really embraced the surround formats and did a phenominal job with their surround disks, the truth is these recordings have been re-engineered to support a surround format, while they were originally written for stereo (some even mono).

The same can be said for most classical music since it was not written for "recording" at all, just for live presentation. So the struggle has been to try and reproduce the live experience as best as possible by the many surround disks made in the last two years. One company (forgot who) even pushed a 3 front channel mix to give the expereince a more realistic feel compared to what someone would have heard at a live concert.

Speaking of concerts, Shock & Dave, there are other concerts besides loud and overbearing pop concerts. If you've ever sat in the front rows of the orchestra section in a well designed concert hall, you'd experience something entirely different from a "rock concert" setting." Personally I don't believe (despite a second mortgage on my house) that I have ever experienced that in my living room. And even pop concerts don't need to be ear-bleeding loud to be enjoyable. I have very fond memories of hearing Fleetwood Mac, Kool & the Gang, The Marsalis bros., the Stones, and Roger Waters live; I just chose to sit a little further back, and as long as I was in the center, the experience was just as powerful. Albeit there is somomething to be said about a quieter audience, typical at a classical concert, IMO.

But there is a place for everything. I do like my movies to sound like they surround me, but for a musical piece, I prefer - and this is just my preference - that the music is well presented in front of me, in a way that most resembles the concert experience. For a musical component to try and immerse me in the middle of the band or orchestra, would seem a little artificial. If Blue Man wants me there, that's great, but I doubt Beethoven did; and while the Stones may try to put me there now, they have not yet succeeded in making me like it.

[shokhead]

First of all there is a substantial difference between a "chip-produced" 5.1 channel mix and a recording that was designed for 5.1 analog from the start. Take for example Blue-Man's DVD. It was designed from the outset to be a surround sound experience that would give the closest possible impression of their concert experience. While Yes and Pink Floyd really embraced the surround formats and did a phenominal job with their surround disks, the truth is these recordings have been re-engineered to support a surround format, while they were originally written for stereo (some even mono).

The same can be said for most classical music since it was not written for "recording" at all, just for live presentation. So the struggle has been to try and reproduce the live experience as best as possible by the many surround disks made in the last two years. One company (forgot who) even pushed a 3 front channel mix to give the expereince a more realistic feel compared to what someone would have heard at a live concert.

Speaking of concerts, Shock & Dave, there are other concerts besides loud and overbearing pop concerts. If you've ever sat in the front rows of the orchestra section in a well designed concert hall, you'd experience something entirely different from a "rock concert" setting." Personally I don't believe (despite a second mortgage on my house) that I have ever experienced that in my living room. And even pop concerts don't need to be ear-bleeding loud to be enjoyable. I have very fond memories of hearing Fleetwood Mac, Kool & the Gang, The Marsalis bros., the Stones, and Roger Waters live; I just chose to sit a little further back, and as long as I was in the center, the experience was just as powerful. Albeit there is somomething to be said about a quieter audience, typical at a classical concert, IMO.

But there is a place for everything. I do like my movies to sound like they surround me, but for a musical piece, I prefer - and this is just my preference - that the music is well presented in front of me, in a way that most resembles the concert experience. For a musical component to try and immerse me in the middle of the band or orchestra, would seem a little artificial. If Blue Man wants me there, that's great, but I doubt Beethoven did; and while the Stones may try to put me there now, they have not yet succeeded in making me like it.

Did i say someplace about loud and overbearing concerts? I say enough dumb things without any help,thank you?LOL Cat Stevens and James Taylor were two of the better concerts i went to around 69/70.

Kool and the Gang?LMFAO. Did you have a fro and bellbottoms?

[nightflier]

...Kool and the Gang?LMFAO. Did you have a fro and bellbottoms?

Kool in the Gang was pretty awsome in concert, and so was Zapp, Grandmaster Flash, and the elements known as Earth Wind and Fire (to borrow from a movie that really does need to be heard in surround sound...). I think I'm going to pull out my old LP's tonight and see if this 2.0 vs. 5.1 debate is really all that meaningful. I can tell you this, and maybe it's just pure psychology, but I enjoyed my crappy LP's and my Cassettes on a $50 JVC player so much more than I now enjoy my current all-digital-gazillion-buttons-hi-res system. Perhaps I'm just trying to capture that feeling again...

I think we're all loosing sight of the fact that to make a true comparison on the musical qualities of each format, we would have to spend about 2-5 times as much as we spent on the 2.0 system. The fact is that most of us might just barely be able to afford a pair $3K mono amps to squeeze just the right amount of performance out of our self-titled hi-fi stereo rigs, but if you were to ask us to do the same for a 5.1 or even 7.1 system, we'd balk at the extra cash outlay. For most of us, we're just no going to be able to compare a quality seperates stereo setup with a receiver-based 7.1 configuration, never mind all the painstaking setup and fine tuning required along with it.

Also, if we're still talking about music and not movies, we should differentiate between concert recordings and studio recordings. Of course, there is extra value in the "concert experience" but is there the same value in a studio recording in 5.1 surround? This is not to say the studio recording can't be a phenominal recording, but we have to ask ourselves why a studio recording has to have ambiant or even full sound behind us. Maybe it should, I don't know, but we still have to ask ourselves that very question.

Now off to find my old LP player. Last I remember, the tonearm was held in place with a roachclip... 'hope it's still attached.

[DaHaq]

Who needs 5.1 surround when two Bose 901s will immaculately reproduce the concert hall environment?

[thepogue]

Kool in the Gang was pretty awsome in concert, and so was Zapp, Grandmaster Flash, and the elements known as Earth Wind and Fire (to borrow from a movie that really does need to be heard in surround sound...). I think I'm going to pull out my old LP's tonight and see if this 2.0 vs. 5.1 debate is really all that meaningful. I can tell you this, and maybe it's just pure psychology, but I enjoyed my crappy LP's and my Cassettes on a $50 JVC player so much more than I now enjoy my current all-digital-gazillion-buttons-hi-res system. Perhaps I'm just trying to capture that feeling again...

I think we're all loosing sight of the fact that to make a true comparison on the musical qualities of each format, we would have to spend about 2-5 times as much as we spent on the 2.0 system. The fact is that most of us might just barely be able to afford a pair $3K mono amps to squeeze just the right amount of performance out of our self-titled hi-fi stereo rigs, but if you were to ask us to do the same for a 5.1 or even 7.1 system, we'd balk at the extra cash outlay. For most of us, we're just no going to be able to compare a quality seperates stereo setup with a receiver-based 7.1 configuration, never mind all the painstaking setup and fine tuning required along with it.

Also, if we're still talking about music and not movies, we should differentiate between concert recordings and studio recordings. Of course, there is extra value in the "concert experience" but is there the same value in a studio recording in 5.1 surround? This is not to say the studio recording can't be a phenominal recording, but we have to ask ourselves why a studio recording has to have ambiant or even full sound behind us. Maybe it should, I don't know, but we still have to ask ourselves that very question.

Now off to find my old LP player. Last I remember, the tonearm was held in place with a roachclip... 'hope it's still attached.

now go pull that roachclip and let...boogie-nights...

Pogue

[shokhead]

Kool in the Gang was pretty awsome in concert, and so was Zapp, Grandmaster Flash, and the elements known as Earth Wind and Fire (to borrow from a movie that really does need to be heard in surround sound...). I think I'm going to pull out my old LP's tonight and see if this 2.0 vs. 5.1 debate is really all that meaningful. I can tell you this, and maybe it's just pure psychology, but I enjoyed my crappy LP's and my Cassettes on a $50 JVC player so much more than I now enjoy my current all-digital-gazillion-buttons-hi-res system. Perhaps I'm just trying to capture that feeling again...

I think we're all loosing sight of the fact that to make a true comparison on the musical qualities of each format, we would have to spend about 2-5 times as much as we spent on the 2.0 system. The fact is that most of us might just barely be able to afford a pair $3K mono amps to squeeze just the right amount of performance out of our self-titled hi-fi stereo rigs, but if you were to ask us to do the same for a 5.1 or even 7.1 system, we'd balk at the extra cash outlay. For most of us, we're just no going to be able to compare a quality seperates stereo setup with a receiver-based 7.1 configuration, never mind all the painstaking setup and fine tuning required along with it.

Also, if we're still talking about music and not movies, we should differentiate between concert recordings and studio recordings. Of course, there is extra value in the "concert experience" but is there the same value in a studio recording in 5.1 surround? This is not to say the studio recording can't be a phenominal recording, but we have to ask ourselves why a studio recording has to have ambiant or even full sound behind us. Maybe it should, I don't know, but we still have to ask ourselves that very question.

Now off to find my old LP player. Last I remember, the tonearm was held in place with a roachclip... 'hope it's still attached.

The roach?

[Dave Lindhorst]

Lets put this all in perspective. 1) Where do you think the most money is spent on sound equipment? 2) What is the most popular format? 3) Why is 2 channel so popular?

2 Channel Stereo and Redbook CDs. Popular because it does a fantastic job. Not at all like multi channel. They play with the signal so much it just isn't believable.

If you need to have a "guitar go through your head" as one so aptly put it, then fill you're boots. I for one enjoy the performance of the music so much I can't possibly listen to 5,6 or 7 channels at a time. How can anyone listen to music and really listen from 7 channels.

The sound tracks on most DVDs are at best sub par with the Redbook CDs. This alone would indicate you need to listen to some other type of source material. If you don't enjoy 2 channel from CDs then maybe you have a hearing problem, an equipment problem or you are asking to have a guitar go through your head.

I listen to multi channel but I have a system dedicated to that format. It is only used for DVD watching. Multi channel has it's purpose and basically it is best used in conjunction with a video presentation. When you listen to an audio track when watching a movie the main focus is on the video end of things. The sound track just helps reinforce what you are watching. If you turned the video feed off you would find the multi channel a little lacking in the sound quality end of things. Long live the best HI FI setup yet established, 2 channel.

[shokhead]

So your head starts spinning when there's more then one instrument playing?

[thepogue]

So your head starts spinning when there's more then one instrument playing?

only when the band is all around me...then I get dizzy...and puke...


Puke'n Pogue

[risabet]

both appear to be dying a quick and painful death. Whether one prefers 2 channel or the multichannel formats may not matter much if and until the industry agrees on a single format for multi. Two formats with very few releases is NOT A GOOD BUSINESS MODEL.

Personally, I prefer vinyl to any other format, be it 2.0 (how modern) or 1.0, for a more believable recreation of an acoustical event.

[Woochifer]

both appear to be dying a quick and painful death. Whether one prefers 2 channel or the multichannel formats may not matter much if and until the industry agrees on a single format for multi. Two formats with very few releases is NOT A GOOD BUSINESS MODEL.

As mainstream formats designed to succeed the CD, I agree that SACD and DVD-A are now dead in that endeavor. The format war, and the copy protected forced analog output for both formats have severely hampered their chances in the market. But, I also believe that at least one of those formats will continue (most likely SACD) as a niche format because all of the audiophile labels have adopted SACD and/or DVD-A for their releases. SACD alone now has over 3,000 titles available. SACD had a window of opportunity to take over because of its hybrid disc format, but Sony botched the launch badly when it couldn't decide if it wanted to market SACD as a two-channel audiophile format or as a mainstream multichannel add-on to the CD.

With DualDisc, it looks like multichannel will catch on because the DualDisc is a single inventory format. Recording engineers have been mixing music in 5.1 for years (the CDs get downmixed from the 5.1 master), and waiting for an appropriate delivery format. While it's great that these multichannel mixes will finally get to market, the drawback is that most of the DualDiscs are providing multichannel in DD, which unfortunately provides no sound quality improvement over the CD.

First is cost pure & simple. I can't afford new, full surround system of the same quality as my stereo system, and I'm not about to compromise on that quality for surround advantages which are real enough; (refer to Sir T).

One of the advantages of multichannel is that you don't have to buy the whole thing at the same time. It's easy enough to start with the basics and add on as budget allows. If you already have two-channel separates, just hook up the two-channel amp to a home theater receiver, and all you have to do is add the surrounds, the subwoofer, and if you prefer, another outboard amplifier.

When I decided to upgrade my two-channel system a few years ago, I set my budget and that was enough for a multichannel receiver and a pair of speakers. It's pretty much the same budget that I would have stuck with had I chosen to buy a two-channel system. The difference is that I took my time and saved up at future junctures to add the other components to complete the system. It ended up taking me two years to complete my setup, but it was rewarding because I enjoyed my system in the meantime while gaining significant upgrades every time I added a new component.

Second is set up. I don't have a room where it is pratical to install center and back speakers in a configuration that is correct for hi-rez SACD and DVD-A.

I'd love to hear Sir T or anybody else refute these factors.

You won't hear me refuting the importance of the room factors. If the room is really that problematic for multichannel, then it's simply not worth going thru the trouble. But, IMO most rooms will work fine with multichannel with some simple rearranging. The surround speakers only have to be slightly behind the listening position (the 110 degree offset specified in the ITU reference configuration for most rooms requires less than one foot of clearance behind the listening position), and IMO the center channel is the easiest speaker to do without in a multichannel configuration. I don't think it's a huge obstacle to accommodate a 5.1 system in most rooms. 6.1 and "7.1" are a different story because so many people have their sofas up against the backwall. 5.1 is doable in most cases, maybe not in your situation, but definitely in most of the ones I've seen.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

If and whan they come out with recorded music with a realistic front channel spread and only the intended ambiance clues from the rear, rthen I'll jump on the bandwagon. That's what will make multi channel a permanant resident in my house for music. I'm not one for having insturments and artifacts swirling around me, except for perhaps an intended evvent.

Mark, you obviously haven't really listened to alot of SACD. I own over 200 classical music titles, and they all have naturally recorded ambience in the rear channels in stereo(like we hear) to boot. There are alot of negative claims being mentioned about multichannel in this thread without much in depth listening being done. I call that a ignorant evaluation which serves no one.

But, If you are saying that I can use some sort of precessor the accurately recreate that ambiance from a two channel recording, well, I'll have to say that so far it ain't happenin'.

Aaaa noope, I didn't say or even imply that.

[markw]

Mark, you obviously haven't really listened to alot of SACD. I own over 200 classical music titles, and they all have naturally recorded ambience in the rear channels in stereo(like we hear) to boot. There are alot of negative claims being mentioned about multichannel in this thread without much in depth listening being done. I call that a ignorant evaluation which serves no one.

These are far and above not the norm. They do exist but are not common yet.

I am very aware of the RCA Living Stereo reissues that utilize the original front three channels and this is a VERY good step in the right direction. I've heard rumors of a few others also, which you've just confirmed. But, then again, the number of these pale in comparison to the other "multi-channel" reissues that simply play mix n' match with what were originaly two channel recordings.

What, with the market's current chilly reception to SACD/DVD-A I hope they last long enough to help cast a positive spin on this before the manufacturer's decide to pull the life support.

Aaaa noope, I didn't say or even imply that.

From the wording of the original, and a few other's posts, I think this was what was originaly refering to as opposesd to what was discussed above. That's where most of my, and probably most peoples, current music lies. Two channel redbook CD's and vinyl.

Remember, the hardware isn't the issue here. It's the need to repopulate my collection with much of what I already have in one version or another. I've got a tremendous amount of plain ole two channel versions of a lot of stuff I like and and not ready to go out and repurchase simply for the gimmick of a few additional channels.

When one format or the other wins out and becomes an accepted industry standard such as LP records, redboook CD, and such, I'll reconsider but until then, the fat lady hasn't sung yet.

Any idea how many PF DSOTM two channel versions, not counting 8 track, there have been since it first hit the streets?

[Mark of Cenla]

I have a 2.0 system (I used to call it stereo) that I am very happy with. I see no reason to change it. When I hear surround sound at movie theaters, it bugs me. As metionned earlier, the ideal would be a speaker for each instrument. I am not old fasionned or stuck in my ways; I just know what I like. If you like more speakers, go for it. As for me, I prefer to have the best two speakers I can afford. Peace.