Hi Alan,
Just my opinion, but I think the apples to oranges comparison is the correct one. My comments about my demo were in response to a comment that “it's clear that the slight audible improvements offered by [SACD and DVD-A] were not sufficient to persuade consumers to adopt them [in preference to the 2 channel CD].” The point I was trying to make with my demo is that SACD and DVD-A do "sound much more realistic" than a standard CD, hence, my chagrin at the lack of success of the multichannel formats.
However, I did say that my demo included comparing PLII to SACD. And the gasps I elicited occurred when I changed from PLII to SACD using the same music from the same disc. I will admit that the volumes were probably not quite identical, but close. I’m willing to consider that the volume difference and/or the placebo affect may have something to do with the difference I hear, but, at this point, I remain skeptical that those factors explain all the difference.
I'm getting way past my level of expertise, but isn't there a bit rate difference, or some recording quality difference, between a redbook 2 channel CD, and a(n) SACD/DVD-A which would provide an improvement in sound quality, regardless of the number of channels? Does a 2 channel SACD offer improvement over a 2 channel redbook SACD? Would laying PLII(x)over the redbook CD compensate for that difference and make it equal in quality to a 2 channel SACD?
I agree completely that DD 5.1, DTS, are as big an improvement over stereo as SACD and DVD-A.
DISCLAIMER: I mean no disrespect to those who are dedicated 2 channel fans. I firmly believe that people should listen to music the way that gives them the most pleasure.
