I have now had the opportunity to listen several times to the quad version, as generously provided me by some unspoken few. I want to be measured in my remarks, because there are enthusiasts on this board far more intimately familiar with this version than me, and I sense a passion for this version that, among audio enthusiasts, often leads to very unproductive discussion. If that's a tipoff that I prefer the SACD, pretty much across the board, then you're right. But let me make some observations.
First, I am not endeavoring to provide a "review" of this disc, as a point-by-point comparison; the review of the SACD required an insane amount of listening in an abbreviated period of time, and, frankly, that's work.
Second, and perhaps most importantly, you should understand my orientation in terms of listening to the discs; I first heard the multichannel SACD--and then I heard this disc; I suspect the reverse is true with the core of people on this board, and, to the extent that this forms a frame of reference that makes one lean in one direction, then I confess which one I heard first, and I'd suggest that you consider this in your own analysis of things.
I'll also say that, in contrast to the two channel version, I would also have formed a preference for and an attachment to the quad version. DSOTM sort of cries out to be spread around the room, and, as much as I've loved the music for as long as it's been out, you never know what you're missing until you hear the surround version. Obviously, there's a core group who have known that for a long, long, time, and it's easy to see how strong impressions get formed, in particular when the only contrast is the two channel version.
Enough of all that. The first, and, I think, obvious difference between the versions is the fidelity of the SACD compared to this version. I recognize that I'm listening to a digitized DTS version on a CDR, as contrasted to the newly mastered version on DSD, but . . . the differerence in fidelity is striking. The audio term "bright" is often described as a negative, but, I believe, only when it is excessively bright. There is a brightness that speaks of high quality, and the SACD has this over the quad version, and it is a significant difference. I hear more of the instruments, and I hear them articulated more cleanly, and in more detail. While I was warned of a slight tape hiss in the quad version, it seemed to me very slight, and you had to search for it to find it. It was not really distracting, though it was there.
The difference in the "surround mixes" (if you want to describe them like that) is interesting. As much as I thought that sparing use of the center channel was made in the SACD, its presence is pronounced in contrast to the quad version (obviously). This is not merely because there is no center channel in the quad mix--it seemed to me that the distinction between left and right was far more pronounced in the quad version, but this didn't really strike me as a virtue; a difference, to be sure, but not one that I preferred.
The Us & Them difference was . . . well, there. I heard the sax in the quad version from the right front channel, while it's in the center in the SACD . . . but there's much more in the SACD (and I think--can't be sure as I write--that Guthrie said that something was added to that particular mix on the SACD--could've been a different cut, though). But the sax was spread in greater detail across the front in the SACD--in the quad version it was from discrete place in the room.
Which leads to, I think, one of the main points. If you do think about a surround mix simply as putting stuff in certain places, then consider that those who became attached to the quad version have long been used to the sax "belonging" in a certain place, and the SACD version moved it; don't get me wrong, most multichannel enthusiasts enjoy hearing this kind of new dimension, but I know where I've reacted in the past to something that sounded "wrong" because it wasn't the way I formed an impression of what was right.
On Money, the sound effects in the quad version interestingly "jumped" from discrete point to discrete point, and it certainly made for a pungent surround experience, and one that was truly enjoyable. Perhaps some might prefer it to the SACD version, and that's certainly the listener's prerogative.
There was also a more pronounced difference between the front and rear channels, as opposed to left and right. I sometimes heard points where it seemed the left front matched the right rear, and the right front the left rear, almost as if an X were being sonically conducted. I enjoyed this, but it is a different approach than the much wider spread (from all directions) that you get in the SACD.
Your own mileage will undoubtedly vary. I'm glad I had the opportunity to hear it.
Nick