Yes. I'll have one last go at explaining this.
You get 3 versions of this business:
1) What physically happens with the audio channels
2a) What the marketing guys wrote on the box, meaning number of channels (2 channels)
2b) What the marketing guys wrote on the box, meaning number of speakers (3 speakers)
3a) What the developers choose when labeling options, meaning number of channels (2 channels)
3b) What the developers choose when labeling options, meaning number of speakers (3 speakers)
I talked consistently in terms of 1). You're using a mixture of all 5 & hence confusion.
For a system like Tpex's Marketing generally picks 2b. The developers should pick 3a, because that is what the sound card physically produces (Remember they don't know what kind of system will be attached). However, they know people can't wrap their heads around the splitting issue and will consequently look for a 2.1 for their "2.1 system", despite actually needing stereo. The easiest way around this is to just combine the two even though technically that means
one is mislabeled.
i.e. In your "2/2.1" option the first part refers to channels (2), the second part refers to the system the developers guessed confused customers would be attaching (3 speakers). This guess works out OK since afaik nobody really sells 2.1 systems wired with 2 cables.
I wouldn't be surprised if in Tpex's setup the stereo and 2.1 setting does exactly the same btw. The one label caters for people aware of the splitting, the other for the people who don't think beyond what it says on the box. End effect is the same - it works. I told him to select stereo because I know that definitely will work. With 2.1 its a case of me having to call the developers bluff correctly - and risking that his developers actually do follow the rules and did cater for this mythical 2.1 system with 2 cables in which case he'd get thin bass and be pissed at me.