Multi-channel vs 2 channel SACD; difference?

Matchstickman,
I find the SACD--I listen in 2-channel only--format to be a sonic improvement over redbook. I know you're deciding on the next source upgrade, so an audition could be in order. If you haven't left Sacramento yet, you're welcome to come by for a comparison.
Howard

I don't know what "most" people do, but if they only use 2 channels it is my opinion that they have wasted money on SACD. It can be better stereo, but not a dramatic improvement for the typical disc.

To answer your specific question in a word...yes.

Boa2, I am still in Sac, but I don't know for how much longer. I need to hook up with sometime next month and check out your gear.

Eldartford, Boa2, what kind of SACD players do you guys have?

There is no waste of money using SACD in 2 channel only, it is still more open, airy and smooth...you are more likely to be satisfied with more SACD discs in 2 channel than in multi...sometimes it all goes to hell in multi

Matchstikman...I have a Denon 2900 with Underwood 3-channel mod and clock, and a stock Pioneer DV45. The Pioneer is in the HT rig.

Chadnliz...And sometimes it all goes to hell in stereo. It all depends on the disc, but a good multi beats a good stereo, just as stereo beats mono.

Best of all (IMHO of course) is the 2+2+2 multichannel configuration promoted by MDG in the DVDA format, but regretably there is little material issued this way.