do SACD's with 2 channel tracks offer a big step up in sound compared to regular CD?

also, is SACD really a dying format?

None whatsoever.

Yes both SACD and DVD-A are both pretty much dead as audio only formats.

goomz,
I would respectfully disagree on the sound. SACD and DVD-A can hold more information. Does that mean they will sound better? depends on the recording setup/ recordings and pressing. I have heard good stuff and bad stuff.

I do agree it is dead...

in a high end setup its surprising that there is no improvement in sound quality. i thought there would be something to be gained. i thought most audiophiles would have at least a small collection of SACD's.

when you say dead, about how many new releases are made a year?

Not surprising really. The "information" that is capable of being stored on SACD and DVD-A are frequencies well beyond the ability of humans to hear, and a noise floor which is lower than the noise of the microphones capturing the sound, not to mention the noise in even the quietest recording venues and of the musicians themselves.

In short - they are overkill, pure and simple.

The marketing of both these formats was screwed up from the beginning. Aside from the obvious flaw of two competing formats, both were sold on "sound quality beyond CD". Little mention was given to their one and only true benefit, that of multi-channel sound.

People did not hear that "greatly superior sound" and they stuck with CD. Most of the multi-channel mixes were gimmicky and added little to the basic function of serving the music.

I've done recording myself at all sample rates and bit depths available, and have never heard (nor has anybody I've auditioned the masters for heard) the slightest difference between a 192kHz / 24 bit master and a carefully transferred copy at 44.1kHz / 16 bit.

By the formats being dead, I mean that there are not a whole lot of releases being made, and the number is getting smaller all the time. What few holdouts to the formats are releasing less and less and will undoubtedly soon stop altogether. They're not in business to loose money.

My experience with SACD was actually that it showed more improvement in a low end set up. As in, on a cheap DVD/SACD player, the SACD playback sounded noticeably better than the standard CD playback.

I did notice, however, that a high-end transport on the same system sounded different, and a little bit nicer, than SACD while playing normal CDs.

Go figure...

SACD may not qualify as "dead" but it certainly isn't thriving. There are some labels still supporting it (Tel-Arc, for example), but it's nothing really substantial. DVD-Audio, on the other hand, really is just plain dead. It's been years since I've seen a true DVD-A new release, although there have been some music DVD's marketed (inaccurately) as "DVD-Audio" simply because their main focus was audio (they generally offered either PCM stereo or Dolby Digital 5.1, with no sign of MLP's lossless multichannel).

As Altec mentions, multichannel mixes are a tricky business. Some can work well, both others just come off as cheesy and distracting.

I wrote about this source for SACD, DVD-A and dts music awhile back. Can't find the post. The dts separation is great.

Try this http://www.5point1.com/index2.html

That page will let you navigate to several of their formats, then choose one and look at the titles. I liked the Les Brown Session #55 (done by his son and engineers). Also Chick Corea- Remembers Bud Powekll, Dave Grusin-WEst Side Story, Handel's Messiah. They have the above formats.

HTH

Many SACDs have been remixed and can’t be compared to a differently mixed CD. Even the included CD layer in hybrid SACDs has usually been remixed. Some feel there isn’t any improvement but many of us are straining every aspect of our systems for the slightest improvement. Some pay premiums for cables, etc. I used to pay a premium for the English imports on albums to obtain superior audio quality. It was said that the English imports were thicker vinyl (besides different covers and sometimes more songs). They sounded better to me. Maybe I can’t hear the full resolution possible on a SACD or DVD-Audio but if I can hear more then the CD can produce then I would think it has the potential of sounding a little better. I do like many multi-channel mixes that spread out the instruments but many SACDs have ruined the material with their mix. It is important to read online reviews before you buy. I would suggest you try a stereo SACD as a test for yourself.

I really like to listen to SACDs using Stereo. Most are Hybrid Cds and multi-channel sounds unnatural to me.

Kubrickfan is right about the remixing and potential and usual actual difference.

I haven't bought into SACDs, though with current equipment it would be no problem. SACDs can be quite variable and it's hit-or-miss.

Furthermore, they are mixed according to the producer-mixer-audio guys tastes. Of course this is also true of stereo CD and vinyls.

A "work-around" for this is to change the levels of the channels according to YOUR taste. This would work and might often be required. So in addition to level changes via remote I would like to be able to change levels individually from the front panel. Not gonna happen.

I listen to about 95% classical music and most of the rest is jazz so I have a reasonable amount of SACD material that fits in nicely. My classical collection consists of about 1000 CDs 150 SACDs
some LPs and a very few DVD-As. I find that I spend most of my listening time with the SACDs even though the selection is more limited.
Most of them are multi-channel and I find that that generally improves the listening experience without any re-mixing.Of the last 50 discs that I purchased, probably 45 were SACDs.
A number of my SACDs are also 2 channel and I find that they provide a more pleasant presentation than redbook CDs IMHO, more like LPs but without the surface noise.
I have no imperical evidence that SACDs sound better, but they increase my listening enjoyment.