How can you not have multichannel system

Sorry Mrtennis, but you lose 40 love, or 3 sets to none with your doubles partner, tvad, on knowledge of multichannel setups and music. Furthermore, what you described with four speakers in a stereo system is a two channel preamp split to send the same stereo signal to four channels. That same result can be duplicated by a multichannel preamp sending the stereo signal to the surround channels and call it simply 5 channel music, or, as some manufacturers have named it, party mix. The stereo channels are redistributed in toto to the surround channels with no effort to extract ambient sound.

Your video analogy is absurd unless you have eyes in the back of your head.
I can understand the live event being issued in multi-channel as the effect of crowd noise surrounding the listener is true to the event. Remixing "Blood On The Tracks" is another matter. If you prefer the mix that's fine but the original intent of the engineers who mastered the tapes is absent. The event is reinterpreted by a new mix master. If that's your preference, fine.
I have never heard this interpretation so I can't judge. Does this mix put you in Bob Dylan's chair, surrounded by the accompanying musicians? Or what exactly is the listener's perspective in the mix?

01-01-09: Mig007
Your comment is incorrect and suggests you have not heard certain multichannel sacd recordings. Blood on the Tracks was released in the mid 70's; Live at the Fillmore East released in the early 70's. Both released in stereo format only. Yet, both were re-released this decade as multi-channel sacd discs.

No. Sorry. My comment is absolutely correct. You need to reread my comment more carefully. In fact, your example illustrates my point perfectly. "Blood" and "Fillmore" were stereo recordings reprocessed into multi channel recordings. They were not originally recorded or mixed as multi channel recordings (with for example mics placed in the rear of the hall specifically to record the ambient sound far from the stage). Their original tracks have been remixed to create the illusion of a multi channel recording, but in fact they are not so. Were we fortunate to hear a true multi channel recording of "Fillmore" we would hear somthing more faithful to the original event, and we would detect the difference easily.

There are some multi channel recordings of orchestral music. If possible, you might pick up one of these and compare with its stereo counterpart. This would be the best illustration of the point I am making.

Your video card illustration is an example of higher resolution versus lower resolution, i.e. SACD versus CD. It is entirely different from a discussion of multiple channels. High resolution exists in both stereo and multi channel formats. Multiple channels does not make a high resolution recording higher resolution. Stereo versions of high resolution SACD recordings are the same resolution as their multi channel counterparts. 24bit/192kHz resolution is the same whether stereo or multi channel.

Sorry Mrtennis, but you lose 40 love

Mig007, your knowledge of tennis is suspect. At 40 love the game is not finished.

In my opinion, the video analogy is right on, if you understand multichannel re-mixing of stereo discs. What is so hard to understand that when you take the original tracks and remix them over 5 channels instead of two, the instruments and vocals are going to sound fuller and more distinct, as opposed to remixing all the instruments and vocals over two channels. Isn't a highway with 4 lanes less congested than a highway with 3 (unless you live in Los Angeles). Actually, forget about the stereo disc. The sacd engineers will build on the intent of the original engineers and use the additional tracks to allow the sounds greater space. Not every multichannel sacd or dvd audio recording is a success. Again, its based on the talents of the sound engineers and the original tracks, garbage in garbage out.