Are You Happy With 2 Channel SACD?

Thanks for the response........Remember Quadrophonic? "discreet 4 channel" I believe it was billed.
Regards,
Wmwman

I have only a dozen or so SACDs, and the only one that I listen to in multi-channel Is Dark Side of the Moon. The rest of them sound much better,IMHO, in two channel. Although it's possible that they will mix the multi tracks better in the future.
Sonny

Thanks Sonny!!!!!!! Good Old Pink Floyd!!!
That is one of my favorites... Are there many rear channel effects on it??? so much so that a 2 channel machine would "rob you" and wouldn't do it justice? Enough to warrant buying a SACD with multi channels vs stereo... Example Marantz SA-14 versus SA-12 or even the DV8400 universal machine...?

Wmwman:

But it's not buying a multi-channel SACD player that is the problem, it's really the additional amps, speakers, stands; etc. that go with it. ... right? So, the worst that happens is that you buy a multi-channel munit and only use it in 2 channel mode. I was listening to a buddy's stereo and he was playing some multi-channel DVD's and I just found that having the music coming from behind me a little disconcerting ... not really that enjoyable. What could work nicely is 3 channel sound, where music would be coming from a 60 degree arc ( \ ^^^/ ) or a wall of sound ( I ^^^ I ) in front of you, so to speak . But accomplishing that could run into some nice cash too ... I would still need a surround sound processor, etc.

As an aside, for those of us old enough to remember, quadrophonic was actually OK, because the speakers were designed to be placed in the four corners and provide the room with an all enveloping sound. The key was to having a room big enough to benefit from this type of speaker placement, which quite frankly most people did not have. At the time, you needed 15' to 20' of wall distance for quad to work at its best. Also, a format war between SONY and the rest of the industry didn't help matters much.

Regards, Rich