Multi channel much better than stereo?

Tireguy, looks like Urban is board and looking for a fight. I'm not playing with him. Apparently he is right cause he says so, Very strongly. Okay Urban YOUR THE MASTER.

Urban,Your in the wrong forum.Your so smart, you can,t read.
Multimedia forum is on the other post.

Tireguy, I agree with you. I'll hate myself in the morning. I have a seperate mid-fi video system in my family room and the DTS DVD of the Eagles Hell Freezes Over concert sound pretty dam good.

I for one am not looking forward to the possibility of adding four more channels. Most of have saved for years to buy our gear. Then theirs the over 1000, 2 channels CD's I have collected. Many of those replacing LP's the X took with her. I am one of those people who got into HiFi when Compact Disc became popular and now it's my turn to feel like the Lp folks felt when CD's started to replace LP's in the stores. The delivery may change but the reason still the same---> MUSIC! Oh well such is life in front of the speakers..

Regardless of cost, I've been incredibly disappointed in multichannel sound. The systems and setups I've heard sound artificial, in terms of where the sound is coming from. I don agree that Hell Freezes Over does sound very good, but for me.....it's 2 channel until multichannel really sounds better.

I heard DVD at a dealer who was excited about it. Nice system, room, etc. I found the rear channels to be annoying, reminding me of the car audio ploy of "rear fill" to sell you to two speakers for the rear deck. I later read and article, probably stereophile, describing multichannel as a sledgehammer approach to solve the problem of creating a live space. I couldn't agree more. HiFi loses some aspects that make audio interesting when 5.1 is used, and a good room creates better space than more speakers do. At concerts, how often have you seen speakers at the back of the venue?