Traditionalist or Progressive; 2-channel or Surround processing?

I am generally firmly in the traditionalist camp. History shows time and time again "great advances" can turn out to be utter failures in short order. Sadly the "advancement" in performance often turns out to be exagerrated (even unintentionally) bc of other "assets" like reduced cost and increased profits skewing perceptions. Marketing is in love with "new and improved" bc the general public eats it up. "Innovation worship" is what I call it; newer inherently equals better, an (often unconscious) tendency, likely strengthened by a vague analogy to evolution, or the worship of health and youth in contemporary Western culture. In real life, things occassionally evolve right into extinction, while the more "primitive" incarnations live on; evolution/innovation is not nec'y synonomous with improvement or progress at all. Thankfully innovations do occassionally live up to, and even surpass the expectations of their initial proponents. So.....I am hoping to instigate some discussion on 2-channel stereo vs. multi-channel set-ups (and specific programs).

I am wondering who prefers traditional 2-channel audio/stereo, and who prefers various incarnations of digital surround sound processing. What are the pros and cons of each? Further, I am wondering which specific digital processing is preferred for specific sources (movies, concerts, sports, studio albums, mono recordings (esp. jazz), rock, classical, opera, should I add video games? lol Where will having more than 2 channels be likely to really improve my experience?

I just bought a Yamaha RX-V2400 for my father and am wondering if it is worth my time to feed the beast...7.1 channels. I have little experience with multi-channel home systems, and it will be significant work to get it going right (equipt.; placement; wiring; logistics; etc.). I know the technology can be quite impressive in the right venue. Perhaps 4 or 5 channels is just as good in a smallish 15' x 20' room? So I wouldn't need to buy additional speakers (except center channel I guess).

I am firmly in the traditionalist camp generally speaking. I prefer tubes to transistors, steel to fiberglass, film to video, hand-animation or even models/miniatures to green screen/digital manipulation, analog to digital, conversations to texting, you get the point. I'm only 40, so my preference isnt merely bc I was accustomed to the old way for years, and have a closed mind that refuses to give the new stuff a chance. Many of my preferences are for techniques given-up years before my birth.
I still find many digitally produced recordings truly unlistenable. Not nec'y bc of lower fidelity of digital vs analog, as much as the copy/pasted, fragmented quality to the end product. It has jagged edges and is incapable of smoothly swinging. Perhaps it is the miniscule variations in human timing/rythym/syncopation that rings true to my ear vs. the "perfect", yet souless, timing of digital manipulation.

I have found multi-channel reproduction of movies (vs. films) quite titilating, even mind-blowing. But I also tend to turn those types of movies off in the first 10 minutes bc I already have figured out what will happen in the remaining 1:30 by then (formula derived blockbusters), and special effects alone will not keep my attn! So is it worth someone like me's time to investigate all these bells and whistles in a mid-priced 120wpc Yamaha 7.1 reciever or should I stick to the tried and true, ooozing with soul and character, Golden Age technology? I did enjoy some of the Yamaha's bells and found them quite an improvement over past experiences with similar programs. For example, various theatre acoustics simulations for live albums, but its still a novelty for sure. Is "7-channel" stereo (for music) preferred to quality 2-channel by anybody? On "Dark Side of the Moon" perhaps?

Are you swimming against the current like me, floating with the current like a dead fish, or pushing the current forward, so to speak?