Quote Originally Posted by nightflier
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.
I agree, all processing would have to be "off"...the .1 channel I would suggest be left at the discretion of the individual for 2.0 music. Using a sub isn't really processing anymore than a 3-way crossover in a 3-way speaker is, but it's an integral componenent of DVD-A and SACD tracks. No processing at all, just a dedicated audio channel.

I think this would be worth pursuing here, and if nothing else would at the very least expose people to multi-channel audio. Hopefully if we could get enough people on this site onboard, we could combine the knowledge and present "guidelines" for setup, etc, so the inexperience with multi-channel isn't a factor.

PM me if you want to follow up on this...we could probably start a new thread to enlist some more volunteers, then formulate a strategy or rules for approaching this.

Now you're thinking! Good job!