CD vs SACD in STEREO

SACD is better than Redbook but much more noticeable with a high end player. Some are surround sound but real music is all 2 channel like going to a concert. I have a Atmos set up for video do not care for it with music.

SACDs generally sound better than Redbook, but format matters less than mastering. For example, Japanese SHM SACDs often sound "bright", sounding anything but "analog".

The other difference maker is the DAC. If you play a great SACD through a mediocre DAC, it won't sound anywhere near as good as a Redbook CD played through a great DAC. 

I only listen to SACDs in stereo or mono. Surround sound is very unnatural. 

Agree that you need good equipment to appreciate the sonics of SACD, but if you have the right equipment most SACDs are a nice improvement over CDs.

The other problem is that unless you listen to classical music, very few SACDs are released and when they are it's in small quantities.  When sold out they increase in price significantly.

@larsman 

SACD has never been about multi-channel as far as I know. On the other hand there is Dolby Atmos, which is

There is so much bad information in this thread, it is hard to know where to start!

Mainstream SACD has ALWAYS been about multi-channel, 5.1 or 5.0.  But realising that not everybody has multi-channel playback capabilities, and given the huge storage increase of a SACD over a CD, most SACDs also include a two-channel mix for play back over conventional "stereo" systems.  I note that the word "stereo" actually means "solid"!

Also, most SACDs are hybrids, meaning they contain a separate layer corresponding to the Redbook CD equivalent.  This means they will play in any conventional CD transport or player.

Direct Stream Digital (DSD) is the native format for SACDs.  Unlike Pulse Code Modulation (PCM), it is a brilliantly simple concept.  Each successive bit simply indicates whether the sound pressure level has gone up or down since the last sample.

For SACD, the samples are taken 64 times more frequently than Redbook CDs, so instead of a steep playback filter, you only need a very gentle filter in the MHz range.

DSD is great for delivery, but not for editing.  This is possibly why is has not caught on for pop/rock.  For editing, even higher resolution file formats are used.

DSD solves the other big problem with PCM, which is the difficulty of trying to match the levels of widely disparate bit values.  The most significant bit is tens of thousands of times more important than the least significant bit.  Many dacs attempt to solve the linearity problem by converting to DSD-like bitstreams – the sigma-delta type.

Of course, to get the best out of DSD, your dacs need to process DSD natively.  Many don’t. 

People have been making multi-channel recordings almost since the invention of magnetic tape.  Four channel records were released almost as soon as two-channel ones.  Dolby Atmos takes it to a new level – literally.  Up to 32  channels can ‘fly’ through 3-d space.  Dark Side of the Moon on Pure Audio Blu-ray exploits this beautifully.

But Dolby Atmos can also be used to represent static sound sources in a natural acoustic.  Try the organ of Notre Dame in Paris by DG.  Better yet, buy some packages from 2L - the Nordic Sound You get hybrid SACD plus Pure Audio Blu-ray with multiple high resolution PCM files and up to nine channels.

@kraftwerkturbo I see you are trying to make sense of it all but all you can really do is listen.

Generally a 24 bit CD will sound about as good as a SACD and SHM CD 's and SHM SACD 's are another factor. 

UHQCD and Platinum CD's are also excellent. If I were you I'd use you OPPO 103 to rip your SACD's to a hard drive and then load them on an Aurender or similar.