Are You Happy With 2 Channel SACD?

I've never seen a SACD that didn't have a two-channel layer.

Wow, like unclejeff said ‘Total unanimity’, and that doesn’t happen here very often. Tempted to be the chef who spoiled the soup… No, just kidding. Seriously, I too agree that two channels is the way to go with. Even if the surround channels are used for ambience information, to me it still feels weird. Just that feeling of “something ain’t right”

I was told that SACD format was never meant to be multi channel, but to get the average Joe’s attention Sony succumbed to it. For he who doesn’t hear the extra resolution, at least more noise was needed! Well, coming from all the sides.

I am breaking in a Xindak SCD-2 and couldn’t be happier with SACD format. In fact an avid proponent of multi channel who owns a XA-777ES listened to some of his favourite SACDs in my two-channel system and now eating crows !!

Multi-channel is great for movie veiwing. 2-channel does it for me for serious listening. Just my 2 cents.

Thanks Again !!
jdaniel.. If $$$$ were no object would you go multi.. The extra cables, speakers etc....?

I think I would just buy an Eastern European Orchestra. Seriously: Sure, but my main priority was taming harshness, (SACD does that for me at least); surround is fun--it may even be better--but I've reached the "I like what I've got" plateau. (How does that old saying go about finding the right lover? You know there's always going to be younger, newer, better, out there, but it just doesn't matter anymore?) I found the whole upgrade thing fun but kind of nerve-racking. I'm really ready to pop open the wine and just do some LISTENING again. I hasten to add--I'm not an audiophile, having sampled a small slice of the equipment out there. My humble advice is to make a list of what your priorities are and go from there.