Hmmm... Actually, subwoofers and center-channel speakers have nothing whatever to do with surround sound. For me, the best part of surround sound is ambience extraction/synthesis. When these processes are performed correctly, the results are astounding. The speakers completely disappear and the illusion that you are at some other acoustic venue is very strong. This works particularly well when viewing a concert or opera on large-screen TV. It goes much farther beyond stereo than stereo goes beyond mono. A close runner-up is having sounds coming at you from all directions. Some people find this disturbing, but I'm the sort of person who's easily bored and needs high levels of stimulation. Recordings like DSotM and TB provide it, along with those "musically tasteless" full-surround classical recordings Columbia was notorious for 25 years ago. It's unfortunate that Sony, et al., have suddenly developed a "purist conscience" and (generally) refuse to reissue these recordings in full surround. If Sony wants to promote SACD, they should remaster them in full surround and sell them at a "reasonable" price. By the way, the SQ LP of "The Threepenny Opera" was (I am told) made in an electronically minimalist fashion with the SQ version being created from the direct mic feeds. It certainly sounds like it, as the end result (even after being run through an SQ decoder) is close to audiophile quality. Arny Krueger wrote... > William Sommerwerck wrote... > >>> I still think surround sound is a farce and a huge waste of money. >> I've had surround sound for 33 years. You don't know what you're >> missing. > Agreed. > I'm of the opinion that the most useful parts of what is now called > *surround sound* technology are subwoofers and center channel > speakers. I've had those for over 25 years.