Two channel or to multi-channel, that is the ???

why multi channel??? when you go and watch a band or orchestra they are on a stage infront of you
LEFT AND RIGHT---never sitting around you...
i heard a multi channel set up in london at a show and they played metallica's nothing else matters or somthing like that--and the orchestra came in from behind and my own opinion!!! it sucked hard..
quadphonic died so will multi channel--it aint real!! music aint that way.......its good for movies but it aint the real deal...

audioholics.com has an interesting piece on both (DVD-SACD)if you have not already read it.
CK

I think hi-rez two-channel is the way to go. Multichannel!? Come on, this seems like nothing more than a souped-up modern version of the embarassingly awful quadrophonic scheme from the 70's.

I think that multi-channel audio will be used by the "early adopters" with deep pockets, but I do not believe that the general public will go for it. Thus, I'd be surprised if in five years multichannel is little more than a faded memory.

If john q. consumer doesn't buy it, recording labels won't create the software.

I'm sure there will always be a few titles available from specialty audiophile labels, but I wouldn't want to sink big bucks into a system that will ultimately support such a limited number of recordings.

Try Sony SCD-XA777ES for ultimate two channel Red Book CD and multichannel SACD playback.
Who said you can't have it all?

Ki

While it's allowed within the dvd spec to author discs for multichannel only (that is, with downmix to 2 channels forbidden), there are few recordings made that way, since it obviously restricts the usefulness and hence number of sales. Presumably the same thing goes for SACD, since SACD has only recently emerged from a 2-channel existence, and Sony/Philips make every effort to keep compatibility with existing systems.
You certainly shouldn't let that issue keep you from getting into hi-rez.
Best of luck.