How can you not have multichannel system

I'm with MrT on this one. At the point where further upgrades to my 2ch system produce vanishing improvements to timbre, then I'd consider adding mch. But I never seem to arrive at that point. Admittedly, the qualities of timbral accuracy and spatial presentation do occur in different planes of the listening experience. Listeners may prioritize one over the other. But in a 2ch system, upgrades that improve timbre also tend to improve spaciousness, whereas one should not be deluded into believing that the simple addition of more channels improves timbral accuracy. Of course, the overall gestalt of music is what counts, but I disagree with Eldartford that it is relatively easy to obtain correct timbre.

Mig007, regarding Teresa Goodwin's Pos. Feedback contributions, her oft expressed opinions about the inferiority of one source format versus another are dubious, as her points are made purely from the perspective of a budget system. Similarly, the point in your original post regarding superiority of mch is relative to the quality/price of the system. Moreover, it would be important for me to assess any mch system based largely on how it sounds when switched into 2ch mode-- as needed for the majority of LP/CD/SACD sources. And on this point, the majority of mch rigs may fall flat on their faces relative comparably priced 2ch systems.

Agree with Tvad, and with few exceptions even the audiophile press seems disinterested. I can see how a mid-line Blu-Ray or SACD mch system might get broad traction across the HT segment, but that's about it.

"If done right, sacd multichannel music will best stereo counterparts, every time, hands down."

Is it "done right" or is it "every time"? If "done right", then how? Compared to what "counterparts"? What performance level of 2ch at what cost?

The fact is that audiophiles and reviewers expend countless efforts splitting hairs/adjectives when comparing near-SOTA 2ch components. In constrast, advocates of mch offer mostly undifferentiated praise of mch systems at varying performance levels, from mass-market players and receivers on up. There seems to be very little formal vocabulary other than the "blow your socks off" variety. However, this is not to say it's impossible to assemble a great-sounding mch system.

Onhwy61 takes a nice approach in rationalizing the cost of building out mch around the nucleas of a high-end 2ch set-up, and in balancing the estimated cost of this upgrade against the limited availability of mch SACDs.

Alternatively, it would be possible to expand a high-quality 2ch SACD system into mch using budget-oriented equipment for the mch front-end and surround-channels. The question then becomes: would this be more satisfying than listening to SACD through a higher quality 2ch system?

There are probably more than a few 2ch devotees like myself who similarly experimented with the surround music-modes of HT processors added with mid-line amps and speakers on top a high-end 2ch audio-only system. Even with a good HT processor like Lexicon, the results sucked! So once bitten it's tough to contemplate returning to the idea without going all out.

I agree with MrT that the psychoacoustics of a mch system at even a low level of performance can be addictive-- particularly to unsophisticated listeners. Many years ago I had a good 2ch system set for party-mode, with a second set of L/R speakers across the back wall powered by a receiver. All non-audiophile visitors said this was the best effect they had ever heard. This had nothing to do with realism.

Funny Mig007, just this morning I was spinning American Beauty on early issue vinyl, which sounds pretty spectacular, thanks more to 2ch audiophile Owlsey Stanley than to subsequent remixers.

Portnoy wanking off into liver purchased by his mother for the family's supper is most definitely Mch. Roth's affection for the lost art of hand-made leather glove making in the Newark of American Pastoral is vintage 2ch.