2 channel movie lstening;is it worth the sacrafice

I used to have my stereo and movie surround system all in the same room.
Recently, I moved the surround processor, multi-channel amp, sub-woofer, etc. to another room where the kids watch movies. They love the surround system. Most of their movies take full advantage of the surround system, sub-woofer, etc. In my listening room, I have a two channel system with a
43 inch plasma screen on the wall between my speakers. I play DVD's and
watch digital cable including HDTV on the screen with the sound coming out of my stereo speakers. My system puts the voices right in the center where the screen is located -- even though my speakers are about 8 feet apart. I don't find that I need a center speaker to locate the voices in the screen. I don't watch many of the whiz-bang type movies that would take advantage of the surround system. I found that, after watching a few of
those movies to enjoy the surround, I settled back into watching the types of
movies I usually watch -- and there was very little for the surround speakers or sub-woofer to do during these movies, if anything. If I want to watch a
whiz-bang movie, I can always watch in the other room, but I don't find myself doing that. So, if I had to make a choice, it would be two-channel for
both music and movies. A person on a budget who was more interested in
music than home theatre could concentrate his/her spending on two channels and acquire a far better system than one who has to split his/her spending among five or even seven channels. And yes, a two channel amp and a 5 channel amp at the same price is no contest, the two channel amp will give you much better sound. Same with pre-amp. And the same money spent on two speakers will give you far better sound that the same money spread over five speakers. Finally, all SACD's have a stereo layer, so even when considering High Rez, there is no absolute need for multi-channel. I love listening to SACD's in two-channel.

It is nice that you finally revealed your REAL points, but I didn't see anyone making any of the arguments to which you refer. So, I not only think you are confused, I think your REAL points are non sequiters.

I agree that you need full range high quality speakers to be able to get by with two channel for movies -- but -- I also stand by the argument that you're more likely to be able to acquire that type of two channel system if
you don't have to spread your money over five or seven channels. I disagree with the argument that there is too much going on in movies for two channels. If your two channel system can resolve a Mahler Symphony, it can certainly resolve a movie sound track. But, if your taste runs to Star Wars
and Matrix type movies -- then two channel will not give you the same sensation. I just don't find myself watching movies like that. I watched them when I first got my surround system -- and there are about 10 movies that
will really give your system a work-out -- then I didn't go back to them. In
fact, I didn't even watch the entire movies. You end up watching the Pod
Race from Star Wars, the shoot-out scene in Matrix, the first five minutes of
Twister, and a few others. Most movie sound tracks don't even use the rear
surrounds or Sub-Woofer. In fact, when I think about it, there is some irony
in the fact that some people believe that there isn't enough music on SACD
to justify switching -- even though there are some 1,800 titles, while there
are only about 10 movies that really justify a surround movie system. And -- at that -- only a few scenes in those movies. Just my opinion.

These posts are posted to the general forum. Anyone can respond.

Golden -- I get the unfortunate sarcasm -- but, this is what you wrote,

"This is the Home Theater category, not a place for anti-HT/2 ch.-only guys to post."

So, you presented yourself as a little confused. So, when you are straightened out, responding sarcastically isn't necessarily humorous -- at least in the way you may be intending, it just makes you seem that much more confused. As to your "being had" by the original poster -- who cares? He presented this as a discussion topic and we discussed it. Where's the victim? Finally, calling people "narrow minded" because they disagree with you is just more irony. You see, open minded people are those who can tolerate a difference of opinion. But -- golly -- you probably already knew that. Right?

Damn you, Jceisner, you made us engage in a discussion under false pretenses. This world will never be safe until people like you are rooted out and shown for what you are -- a discussion starter! The worst kind of participant to have on a discussion forum. This simply can NOT be
tolerated in a civilized society. You start a discussion, next thing you know, people are weighing in with their experiences and opinions and -- this can only lead to total chaos! You must be stopped!!!