You bring up a good point, Misfit - why are we so worride about directionality in our surrounds?
MY current 5.1 setup (which sucks) has regular, directional, front-firing speakers. I actually kind of like it when the surroudn mix is a little aggressive, and you can hear where the sound is coming from. Now, saying that, I imagine that with quad-polar surrounds, you'll still get "some" directionality, but I wouldn't know. I guess the theory is that the QSs better simulate the multiple side-speakers in a theater. But to be honest, one of teh things that I prefer about home theaters (those of my own and my friends, who have better systems than I) is that the surroudn sound is slightly more localized, and, as such, has more impact.
I can see how certain situations may call for different solutions, though, too. For instance, Axiom Alan is constantly refering to the Bourne Identity when he talks abotu great surround. I think that he does so because the surround in that movie isn't tremendously aggressive, and where it is, the surround use is very atmospheric (e.g. rain, the city streets).
I dont' even think that I have .02 above, but maybe some more experienced Home Theater experts coudl shed some light on why quadpolar is as good as it is touted to be, and whether the localization is a bad thing...
