2-channel + 3-channel amps, versus 5-channel amp

I am considering an amplifier upgrade for my system, which pulls double duty for 2-channel and HT. In truth, I have been listening to more HT (what with kids and all), but most of my critical listening is good old 2-channel. My initial thought would be that a really good two channel amp, and then a separate 3-channel amp for center and surrounds (not worried about 7.1, for now or the foreseeable future) would be the way to go, but I do see a number of really nice 5-channel amps out there (Theta DII is enticing). My concern with 5-channel would be a single power supply trying to handle all 5 channels. But I do see that most of these amps use a very beefy, and significantly upgraded power supply over their 2-3 channel brethren.

And advantage of the 5-channel approach is that all three of my front speakers would receive the same power, which is nice. But then this begs the question of whether or not I would be better served by getting a better/more powerful 3-channel amp, and then a smaller 2-channel amp for surrounds! Talk about choices (then of course, there is the option of 5 mono amps!).

For speakers, I am driving Thiel CS3.6's, which are notoriously hard to drive, and spend a good bit of their time in the 2 ohm region, a Thiel SCS3 for the center (which is loads easier to drive), and currently I have AR TSW-110's for surrounds, though I may replace them with two more SCS3's. My processor is a Rotel RSP-1066. Brands which I have been looking into include McCormack, Krell, Bryston, Theta, and Classe.

Any thoughts, comments, suggestions are appreciated.

Thanks, Tom.