surround processor?

It's very unfortunate that we have several users on this forum who just continually slam any idea of home theater and multi-channel systems. Yeah, after 100 duplicate copy-pasted messages on this forum, we get it. Every channel costs money and ht processors are not necessarily equal to two channel equipment, but at some point this just becomes noise and significant negativity (which is something we need to strive to avoid here).

Toe the party line. Right. Got it. Sieg heil!

Nice try. But I still have to give the nod to all your base are belong to us.

It is a matter of simple logic to prove a surround system will never outperform stereo. Fact: better components cost more. Fact: no one has infinite money. Therefore, for however much money you have it will buy better components the fewer of them there are to buy.

Surround components never can be anything but equal to stereo, for the simple fact whatever technology is used in surround can be used in stereo- but not the other way around.

So it does not matter whether you have $5k or $50k, or $500k- or $5M. Divided into two speakers buys better sounding speakers than divided into 5.1 or 7.2 or whatever. Same for amps, cables, everything.

Quality rules. Surround sucks. Simple as that.

It is not skepticism. If you would bother to read you would know it is experience. Skepticism is theoretical. What someone thinks. Experience is actual, what actually happened. In this case my actual experience was the exact opposite of my expectations. Any skepticism I may have had was being skeptical stereo could do the job. It was only after two full years of trying all kinds of multi-channel solutions that I came to the conclusion multi-channel is a marketing ploy and a fool's game. The primary goal of multi-channel is to sell more stuff. At this it is an unparalleled success.

Magical thinking is when you invent a narrative and then try to pretend reality will somehow bend to match your fantasy. When you do this, which you just did, psychologists call it projection.

This is especially apparent in light of your post following immediately on the heels of Mglik, an industry professional and audiophile who just corroborated everything I have been saying. Please, read what is written. Respond to what exists. Don't deny reality, go making stuff up, and then have the temerity to say the other guy is "magical thinking". 

Somehow the language got so distorted people think Home Theater means Multichannel. This was a Jedi mind trick. Does "home" mean multi-channel? What about "theater"? So how did "home theater" come to mean dogmatically multi-channel? 

Discuss among yourselves. I already know the answer.

Wasted a year, maybe two, chasing this one. Easily the worst thing you can do is add channels. The processor alone, merely having it connected nothing even going through it, however you want to call it, even that harms stereo quality. They are just the noisiest thing, much worse than a DAC, CDP or streamer. They cost money that takes away from where it could actually do some good. Extra speakers, amps and cables means only being able to afford worse ones for where it matters, the stereo.  

That is why after two years banging my head against marketing and the CW I finally got up the courage to buck the trend and do it right. https://systems.audiogon.com/systems/8367 I wish you well.