How can you not have multichannel system

Guess you forgot this snide comment, which basically resorts to name calling.:

01-04-09: Mig007
Mr. Smuck, no, I won't attempt to cook your steak, but nice 'Vegas' effect with your system, or were you trying to imagine what a hi-fi system would look like on the 'Enterprise'.

No one here ever stated that multi channel versions of older recordings were processed stereo mixes. If you came away with that impression, then you misunderstood what was written.

To remix a recording into multi-channel by essentially laying the left and right tracks into the rear left and right channels but a a lower volume is a trick no matter how you describe it. This is what was observed by an owner of the "Blood on the Tracks" multi channel remix. Rather than the word trick, let's use the word technique. Nevertheless, no article on the mixing technique used on "Blood on the Tracks" was ever discovered or read, so we have no definitive answer to what was mixed into the surround channels.

I believe I explained my use of the word trick many posts ago, yet you to choose to hang onto the word rather than learn from what I explained afterward.

No progression in the discussion. That's the take-away here. That and your bitterness at multi channel being left behind to wither.

Mig007, joined at the hip??? What the hell are you talking about? Me and Tvad???
But again I agree with Tvad. Your posting is insincere and ill-founded. Don't like being called on such then don't post.

"What the hell are you talking about? Me (Tbg) and Tvad???"

My thoughts exactly when I read this.

LOL!

Check out his threads. Go the bottom one and see where that one goes.

the audiophile hobby endeavors to reproduce the live event, or so I believe

Don't agree. The audiophile goal is to accurately reproduce whatever is embedded in the media. The recording engineer and producer may, or may not, try to reproduce the live event. Audiophiles can only reproduce what has been recorded.

There is no agreed upon standard for what to do with the rear (or side) channels with multi-channel audio. There are no technical reasons why any musical element couldn't be assigned to any individual channel. The decisions are aesthetic in nature. Some of the productions may appear to be natural, others not so. For a large body of popular music the distinction is irrelevant in that no single musical event ever really occurred.

I've noticed in many of the replies that people have assigned the channel choice decision-making to the recording engineer. While that is possible, the more likely person in charge is the producer. There are exceptions, but for the most part recording engineers are technicians more concerned with the correct positioning of mics and avoiding level overload. The artistic vision of the music's ultimate presentation as heard by the public is usually determined by the producer.

Regarding the original question -- for me it comes down to how much well recorded multi-channel music that I like is available. In order to match the quality of my existing 2 channel system I estimate it would take an additional $15k minimum investment in source components, processors, amps, speakers and cables. I extrapolate that to mean there has to be at least $15k in multi-channel music that I would also buy in the near future. Your system and your music collection should have some sense of balance, IMO. As pointed out by others that amount of music isn't available. So why even have a multi-channel music system?