Wave Field Synthesis is the best system for horizontal (x and y)"surround".
Gerzon's ambisonics is the most cost effective (recording and playback)system - if MUSIC continues to employ microphones!
Electro-acoustic instruments and digital samples together with full-bandwidth uncompressed multichannel SPATIALIZATION (using height speakers for true 3D) will revolutionize live music performance and the performing arts. (no stage sound except for close miked vocals-all in-ear monitoring)
The home market will settle for a sub-standard recreation of the enlarged soundfield (offered by live spatialization and even IOSONO if they convince investors to build projection-less theatres)- limited by compression formats, algorithmic tampering, ignorant mixing and mastering but most of all shitty acoustic reproduction environments and crappy speakers.
Composers MUST be involved in the creation and production of any immersive sound content/music for the REAL benefits of this "industry" to emerge and be critically recognized. Stereo is artificial - we hear sound from ALL directions!
Wave field synthesis
in principle is not reduced upon the azimut plain, as by the loudspeaker lines around the listener. A relatively unknown 3D-wfs proposal works with a speaker field only behind the screen. It is described by http://www.syntheticwave.de/Wavefieldsynthesis.htm , last part. It seems to be a more acceptable solution regarding the home theather.
Most of people has or will have a 5.1 system (or a simple stereo system)and Ambisonic offer a real flexibility for any sound system. Ambisonic is more of a technic to reproduce an acoustic field, he is a potential format to describe and to code a sound scene.
I understand, however do you not think that binaural techniques may infact offer a potentially cheaper alternative and be more easily accesible to the general public in the future?
Also, not forgetting that crosstalk cancelled binaural systems utilse binaural techniques, and these are loudspeaker based systems that can, at least, offer computer gamers spatialised sound, and in the increasingly popular case of multiplayer online gaming via consoles, this can also be a socialable experience. I think this may be available already in some form, not sure though. Although I'm not necessarily talking about music reproduction in this case. Perhaps even, it will actually be gaming consoles that offer one of these surround formats for the home in the never ending quest to improve the customer experience.
I agree though about HRTF's and I know many others will do too.
Yes binaural technics offer a cheaper alternative, but a listening with a headphone has differents problems. Currently there is a big problem with the individualization of HRTF (but in 10 years, there will be a solution), a listening with a headphone tire quickly your hearing. Another problem and not the least : a listening with a headphone doesn't offer a "sociable" listening, I don't know if my last reason is very easy to understand :) but she is very important. Most of people in a house listen music or film with her family/friends, and enjoy to share their impressions. With a headphone we lost this possibility. I don't see binaural technics for a "household" listening, but very useful in museum or something like that.
Social values trump technology
In my view the enabling trigger will come from a shift in loudspeaker transducers, such as flat panel distributed mode, which can be hung on the wall. If this happens, the technology that best matches the production environment will win. Currently, all surround technologies are based on ancient transducers. None of the current choices really work for the average individual because they all lack a large sweet spot, which is required for a social experience. Binaural and crosstalk cancellation have the smallest area: typical big enough for one listener.
The larger issues originate from the ideas of aural architecture, which transcend those of the technology. See www.SpacesSpeak.com for an intro to the subject.