And this is the biggest problem with classical music in surround. For every average ho hum reading in surround there are dozens of superior performances on CD. I still check the Quadraphonic Quad forum (or the rather sad surround thread on Talk Classical with 5 participants in a forum with 20k members) to see what they're talking about when it comes to surround classical and can't help but shake my head at some of the stuff they consider good performances. The classical lovers did embrace CD and never moved away from it.
Most recent set I have been greatly enjoying- Oistrakh Complete DG Recordings. 22 discs for $60. You won't find that legend in surround. Maybe a handful of hi-res stereo.
Gosh. Maybe I was not looking when they totally disabled the stereo capability on my surround system. Shame on me, and sad indeed that I am doomed never to be able to listen to the glories of stereo or even mono ever again, since I am forever locked into Mch.
Seriously, I can play whatever I want to play - mono, stereo, Mch, hi/lo rez. To each, his or her own in choices of music, formats and recordings to listen to. Choices have never been better. Your taste and your preferences in both music and sound are yours, and you are entitled to them, as are we all. But, I do not subscribe to your views.
You are also, IMHO, distorting the truth about musical "quality" or the lack thereof among newer hi rez Mch releases by today's artists relative to classic stereo performances of yesteryear, many like David Oistrakh, being "golden oldies". The landscape is not as bleak as you suggest at all. And, older, no more than newer, is any guarantee of artistic or interpretive quality in my book.
Not putting Oistrakh down at all. He is one of the greats, no question. But, classical music dies quickly if it is forever locked into the tyranny of the sentimental "one and only definitive performance for the ages" idea. Having rather massive collections on LP and CD of such "definitive" performances myself, in addition to spending hours each day listening to classic performances on stereo FM radio, my own tastes now lean toward hearing a new generation of artistic interpretations of familiar classics whenever I can. Thursday night's concert I attended of Stravinsky's Petrouchka and the Chopin Piano Concerto #1 by the Philadelphia Orchestra under Yannick Nezet-Seguin reaffirmed that for me. I have heard these works what seems like millions of times. But, this is like a relevatory life blood, attesting not to only the vitality of classical music a century or more old, but also to just how magical the art is by spawning so many interesting new, current interpretations that have musical and aesthetic validity to us today.
And, then, of course, there is the sound. It is secondary to the music, I grant you, but within limits. So, when I want to plop down and enjoy myself, to my ears, nothing delivers a sound quality experience like today's hi rez Mch. Sorry, but 50's-60's-'70's DGG stereo sound is just not my cuppa tea. There was better even back in those days, as I know quite well from my own collection. Your views on the music vs. the sound put you much more in line than me with
@Cosmik's stereotype of the typical BBC3 listener, I believe.
Speaking of sound, those who have a Stereophile subscription can read Kal Rubinson's interesting comparison on classical music with the sound of the awesome Beolabs he loved in stereo vs. his return to the sound of his familiar Mch system in his living room. It is in the January issue's Music in the Round column as a postmortem to his Beolab review in the same issue. There are also some very nice reviews of recent Mch classical recordings accompanying that. It is an interesting read, and one I find entirely credible and on target.