why do people like 2.0 channel so much???

[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?