why do people like 2.0 channel so much???

[nightflier]

I don't think you've thought this out very well...how much do you really know about these two formats? Both SACD and DVD-A offer hi-rez in 2.0 channel format. And guess what - it's available at an even higher maximum resolution than in 5.1!!!! But ya know what, there's a whole slew of us folk out there who've done our in-home a/b tests and come to the conclusion that 5.1 at the lower resolution is far superior to the 2.0 track of highest resolution.

I guess I have some more listening to do then. My 5.1/7.1 setup is just via an average receiver, but my 2.0 setup is a whole lot more capable and getting even better (I'm still building it up). That said, I do think that we should narrow all the options down a little because there's a lot of questions here, folks.

First of all, we need to throw out all comparisons between consumer grade 5.1 receivers and multi-thousand dollar 2.0 systems, because that comparison just isn't fair. So the comparison has to be on our surround systems, only, and using these to switch between the two formats. I know that won't please many, including me, because I consider my Cambridge CD player in my stereo system pretty good compared to my DVD player in my 5.1 system.

The other painful thing about this is that we have to throw out vinyl and even RBCD's right away, because they are not available in multi-channel formats, and thus not available for comparison. Essentially we need hardware and software that is available (in resonably identical forms) on both formats only. So hybrid SACD/DVD-A disks are the only option.

Hardware:

On the 5.1 side, it should be an SACD/DVD-A player with discreet 5.1 analog outputs. No processing should be used so all the matrixed formats (PLII, Stereo-5, etc.) are out. Also, an effort needs to be made to simplify the system as much as possible, too, so any unused components should be removed from the systems.

For 2.0, we'll also use the SACD/DVD-A player connected to 2-speakers with absolutely no software processing. Before we go on, we should determine if we include 2.1 in this comparison since we are using a sub on the 5.1 side, or would that constitute too much processing?

I realize that much of the comparison will depend on the quality of DAC's both internal ones and seperate ones, but to keep the comparison reasonably manageable, we'll ignore these.

Software:

The next thing we need to hammer out is the music. We've been throwing all kinds of types into this debate. Live? Studio? Recorded for 5.1 and downmixed to 2.0 or visa-versa? So let's agree on several well regarded and representative recordings that are available on a hybrid multi-channel disk and that most of us are likely to own. It should be a good selection of music tracks with good representation in bass, mid's and highs. It should also cover several music genres such as classical, jazz, etc. as well as a good selection of instruments and voices.

So there you have it.

I propose we all decide on a these criteria for a fair comparison. Then we come back here and see what we have found. Our systems vary greatly, I know, but this way we'll get somewhat of a concensus. I think this would be a very interesting experiment. While many will immediately conclude that the multi-channel camp will win this (I can already see the vinylophiles boycotting everything from here on out), we need to keep in mind that most of the music we select here was written for 2.0 and re-engineered for 5.1 once multi-channel became popular enough. Ultimately, the crux of this debate is whether multichannel stays truer to the original music than stereo, or whether it is merely psychologically more pleasing on whatever level.

One more thing, this forum is already 7 pages, maybe we should move it to a new discussion, too.