I have a general question about surround sound.

I share your sentiments on surround sound

two channel done right can be phenomenal
spend the money there not on multi

multi channel smears the image unless it is set up perfectly and with a recording which actually incorporates the spatial relationships of the room. very few recordings are done true multi channel outside of the big budget action movies. WHo wants a boom boom room for just that? What you typically have in a multi channel recording is just mixing of multichannel info into 5.1 channels and no ambience or hall dynamics. One rare example of good multi is the last track on the Eagles Hell Freezes Over dvd - one singer per channel. String quartets or jazz trios should be recorded well in a 5.1 setting, but typically are not. Most 5.1 is very old historical (best seller back catalog stuff) two channel sources.

I just don't understand home theatre

more is not better

but it's a great way for people with older stereo systems to feel like they are actually missing something and get the upgrade bug

and you can impress your friends with psuedo imaging

tom

The type of image that audiophiles love from stereo does not sound like anything you may hear in a live venue. Many audiophiles have given up, I think, on reproduced music sounding in the home like the real experience. Focusing on attributes of sound reproduction that are kind of inward looking, as though sound systems were to be compared solely to other sound systems, they strive for qualities that are not there in the real thing. The whole notion of being able to differentiate between musicians within an orchestra is one of these attributes sought by audiophiles. Unless sitting very close, most orchestras, except for the times the music demands a soloist or that only one section be playing, sound way more homogeneous, at least to my ears, than what audiophiles cherish. The hall ambiance is only hinted at in two-channel reproduction. Again, the whole thing hinges on what will be done with the new technical possibilities at hand. If it is anything like the production of stereo recordings, you can rest assured that it will be extremely variable. Thinking that only two channels are required is like hardening of the arteries.

The hallambience can be much more than hinted at IMO. As my system has "matured" with room treatments, cables, power-line conditioning,equipment isolation, speaker placement, tube selection etc ,,, hall ambience has come out to an astounding level. So much so that seated anywhere close to the sweet spot, you do feel surrounded by the music.

Your a lucky man. It's amazing that something as remote as equipment isolation would have an effect (placebo, maybe?) on ambiance. I maintain my point that anyone so enslaved to two channel would have been equally enslaved to mono. Audio of the high-end persuasion is going nowhere fast since there are too may sacred cows and belief in voodoo.

Just a clarification ... I am not enslaved to 2 channel, or mono - not sure what I said to give that impression. I indeed have a surround system and listen and view in multi-channel. I also listen to 2 channel. When I first installed everything, as one example, I preferred to listen to the Eagles Hell Freezes over in surround. As my system matured as described before, I can now say that I will listen to it in 2 channel as well. And if I am doing normal CDs they are MUCH better after all the work.