-
Should I buy an SACD player?
--Focal 706V speakers
http://www.focal.tm.fr/accueil_en.htm
--NAD C325 integrated amplifier
http://nadelectronics.com/products/h...ated-Amplifier
I am looking for a CD player. I can get a brand new Marantz cd5001 for $250... This has been suggested: http://usa.denon.com/ProductDetails/418.asp
Does it matter? Is it worth having the SACD function (I don't know anything about it), and is one CD player better than the other?
Does a receiver/amp have to support SACD?
-
I have the Denon in question, I would not recommend it for audio, unless you upgrade the output stage. Although it does have a pretty good dac in it, you can read my post here for more information:
http://forums.audioreview.com/digital-domain-computer-audio/burson-audio-output-stage-upgrade-tested-21126.html
Overall the Marantz is probably the cheapest route to good sound.
-
If you don't know anything about SACD, then I wouldn't recommend it. You would have to buy special SACD's to play in it (which I do, and I recommend at least hearing it before you decide), which you probably don't have yet. Peoples' biggest complaint is lack of catalog available on SACD.
I personally find the fidelity of SACD superior to redbook (CD), so if you can hear the difference, then I would definitely recommend it. Do you like vinyl/records? That's probably a good test. If you think analog is superior to CD's, then you'd probably like SACD as well. If you're happy with CD's, then continue being happy with CD's.
-
At the very least it is worth investigating. If there is a boutique store within reach I recommend that you audition SACD in a decent environment. I am a huge proponent of hi-rez music and, like Dusty, find it to be worth my time to search out titles.
That said, what kind of music do you favor? The SACD catalogue tends to be deepest within the classical and jazz genres.
If you are a strictly rock'n'roll kind of character that Marantz may be the way to go. I doubt you'll find too many units at that price point that will outperform it. If SACD is something that appeals to you I would recommend saving up a bit more cheese and moving up the Denon ladder to the 2930CI. Also an option, you might be able to find boxstock of the Denon 2910, the precursor to the 2930, at a very reasonable price. I can't imagine that unit not meeting your expectations.
-
Answer three questions
Quote:
Originally Posted by cpt998
First: do you like classical music? The SACD catalogue is heavily weighted towards this genre. Check this link for info and virtually all SACD releases ...
http://www.sa-cd.net/
Second: do you have a multi-channel system? (The info you provided suggests not, but if so ...) Most SACD releases are multi-channel, and good M/C recordings provide a level of realism than surpasses anything possible with stereo.
Third: do you have a "golden ear"? That is, do you care about the best possible sound? SACD provides this -- yes, it beats vinyl, IMO. Bear in mind though, that 90% of sound quality has to do with the recording process, not the medium in which its delivered.
If you can answer "yes" to two out of three of these questions, (or feel strongly about the 3rd), then SACD should be a "go" for you.
A couple more things. No, you don't have to have a special amp or receiver to support SACD; (multi-channel receivers ought provide 6 channel, discrete input: most do). And finally, don't be unduely concerned about SACD becoming obsolete: most SACDs are "hybrid", that is, they can be played on standard CD players, (though at standard CD resolution) -- and CDs are going to be around for a long, long time.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by cpt998
Yes,get one.
-
I am going to purchase the Marantz player. It is in my budget, I can get one for a good price, and SACD does not appeal to me. I do not listen to classical music/blues heavily, so I don't think I would really benefit from the format. Maybe if/when it becomes more mainstream I will invest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feanor
First: do you like classical music? The SACD catalogue is heavily weighted towards this genre. Check this link for info and virtually all SACD releases ...
http://www.sa-cd.net/
Second: do you have a multi-channel system? (The info you provided suggests not, but if so ...) Most SACD releases are multi-channel, and good M/C recordings provide a level of realism than surpasses anything possible with stereo.
Third: do you have a "golden ear"? That is, do you care about the best possible sound? SACD provides this -- yes, it beats vinyl, IMO. Bear in mind though, that 90% of sound quality has to do with the recording process, not the medium in which its delivered.
If you can answer "yes" to two out of three of these questions, (or feel strongly about the 3rd), then SACD should be a "go" for you.
A couple more things. No, you don't have to have a special amp or receiver to support SACD; (multi-channel receivers ought provide 6 channel, discrete input: most do). And finally, don't be unduely concerned about SACD becoming obsolete: most SACDs are "hybrid", that is, they can be played on standard CD players, (though at standard CD resolution) -- and CDs are going to be around for a long, long time.
'
1. Not particularly
2. No
3. I'm practically half deaf
Until SACD becomes more 'maintstream', I'll pass on the player. Sounds like it will be around for a while, as you described. I'll pick up the marantz. Thanks for the suggestions.
-
You're welcome...
...and good luck with the Marantz. I suspect you'll be pretty happy as they generally make solid stuff.
-
Its as mainstream as its going to get and my CCR or SRV ,Police and others isnt classical . Me,i wouldnt buy a player nowadays unless its a universal. You can find plenty at the right price. Why limit yourself.
-
The Denon does play DVD-Audio as well, which will help broaden the catalog along with Super Audio Disc's. I have about 10 DVD-A's for my car, since it can play the format.
I was in the same boat trying to find a Universal DVD player that had great audio quailty. I ended up buying Oppo DVD player and Arcam 73T for CD's.
Couple other Universal DVD options for you:
http://us.marantz.com/Products/2047.asp
http://www.oppodigital.com/dv981hd/dv981hd_index.html
-
I agree with Da Shoky. If you can get a solid SACDP or a Univ. P for around 400, then why not? I'm sure their RBCD playback capability would be just as good. You can always get a disc of two of your absolute choice. Why wouldnt that be a plus? As long as CDP exists, SACD format will not die out. DSD function would be nice, but not sure if sub $400 players would support that. I'm not sure. What happened to all the Cambridge Audio recommedations? They make some budget universal players as well.
-
I would suggest that you scan the sa-cd.net site and look through the SACD releases available. If any of them are on your "desert island" disc list, then a SACD player might be worth exploring.
In general, the companies that issue SACDs have put a lot more care into the mastering process on those releases. Thus, in most cases with the actual discs themselves, the SACD version will sound noticeably better than the CD version (whether this improvement is due more to the extra resolution or to the attention to detail at the mastering stage is a source of endless debate).
In addition to the higher resolution, SACD also lets you hear favorite recordings in 5.1 surround. This not only provides an extra dimension of imaging, but it can also dramatically improve the sound quality. The sound quality improvement happens because the 5.1 remix require going all the way back to the original multitrack master tape. With many older recordings, the stereo mixdowns were done using inferior analog tape players that audibly degraded the sound with each mixing pass. And to create a strong stereo image, many of the mixes required extensive processing and signal compression. By remixing these original tapes with modern high res digital equipment, and no longer having to process the signal to squeeze the multiple tracks down to two tracks, the 5.1 remix can greatly improve the sound clarity.
Also, most SACDs are hybrid discs with a separate CD layer that you can play on a regular CD player, and in many cases the CD layer also improves the sound quality over the previous CD version.
I bought my SACD player primarily so that I could hear the SF Symphony's magnificent Mahler series in their full resolution and in multichannel. As great as they sound with the CD layer, the SACD layers are even better. Those recordings were originally done in the one-bit DSD format, which is what SACD uses.
Getting a SACD that was originally recorded in DSD is basically a one-for-one transcription of the master recording. And hearing those recordings in multichannel brings the listener that much closer to how it actually sounds sitting inside Davies Symphony Hall (I usually attend 3-4 SF Symphony performances a year, including one of the recording sessions for the Mahler series)
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by cpt998
I am going to purchase the Marantz player. It is in my budget, I can get one for a good price, and SACD does not appeal to me. I do not listen to classical music/blues heavily, so I don't think I would really benefit from the format. Maybe if/when it becomes more mainstream I will invest.
'
1. Not particularly
2. No
3. I'm practically half deaf
Until SACD becomes more 'maintstream', I'll pass on the player. Sounds like it will be around for a while, as you described. I'll pick up the marantz. Thanks for the suggestions.
The Marantz is a great choice... IMHO it's easily one of the best value for your money CD players available....
It's cheap enough that if later on you want to buy a more expensive SACD/DVDA player, you won't feel bad about the money you spent on the Marantz...
I'm not a fan of cheap universal players.... I find it very hard to believe that a company can produce a player that does justice to Redbook CDs, SACD and DVDA all for around $400... I'd say get the Marantz and later if you really find that there are SACD titles that you are interested in, then upgrade from the Marantz 5001 to the 8001....
-
I am only running a 2 channel system. Some of the SACD's appeal to me,and I purchased the Marantz 5001 for a very good price.. are there any SACD players in the $400 range that will work as well as the Marantz? I know little about either.
-
how is the 5400 (the previous model before the 5001) compare? I can get one used for $200CDN no takes and shipping included. good deal?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by cpt998
With your equipment, an SACD will sound better
I have a Marantz 6500 all in one player, and it plays SACD's very nicely
SACD's may be 2 or multi channel...
my marantz player actually has both multi ch and 2ch outputs... (I have both going to my preamp)
later
Mike
fyi, the Marantz 6500 was ~$450 2 years ago... maybe find it cheaper now?
-
You will need Three sets of rca cables .
-
But only for multi-channel
Quote:
Originally Posted by P mac
You will need Three sets of rca cables .
A pair is fine for stereo.
-
-
-
-
-
Oh! Beats me. For me,it just does'nt matter.
-
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by shokhead
Oh! Beats me. For me,it just does'nt matter.
boob-o-phile...:smilewinkgrin:
IMO, they're quite big...
-
-
Sacd
Sounds like your decision is made so enjoy the Marantz as I hear they're quite good for the money.I think you have to be realistic when considering these players that have multi-function as a selling point.To get a SACD player that is outstanding with redbook CD's you have to spend big bucks.There's going to be some sacrifice by the manufacturer somewhere when incorporating SACD technology into the same box unless the unit is very high end.It's obviously a budget related decision so there's no perfect scenario.In a perfect world you would have a dedicated player for each and I realize that's neither practical nor inexpensive.To me it's just like an Amp and Preamp combo usually sounding better than an integrated amp,and an integrated amp usually sounding better than a reciever.I suppose you get an investment return with the SACD playback though as the theory is the higher resolution of the SACD's should bring better sound,so maybe a $400 SACD player playing an SACD will sound as good or better than a $700 redbook player playing a standard CD.I just don't think it will sound as good playing the redbooks but that's just my opinion.Enjoy your new player as I don't think you could have made a better choice at your price point.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyB
Sounds like your decision is made so enjoy the Marantz as I hear they're quite good for the money.I think you have to be realistic when considering these players that have multi-function as a selling point.To get a SACD player that is outstanding with redbook CD's you have to spend big bucks.There's going to be some sacrifice by the manufacturer somewhere when incorporating SACD technology into the same box unless the unit is very high end.It's obviously a budget related decision so there's no perfect scenario.In a perfect world you would have a dedicated player for each and I realize that's neither practical nor inexpensive.To me it's just like an Amp and Preamp combo usually sounding better than an integrated amp,and an integrated amp usually sounding better than a reciever.I suppose you get an investment return with the SACD playback though as the theory is the higher resolution of the SACD's should bring better sound,so maybe a $400 SACD player playing an SACD will sound as good or better than a $700 redbook player playing a standard CD.I just don't think it will sound as good playing the redbooks but that's just my opinion.Enjoy your new player as I don't think you could have made a better choice at your price point.
You'd be surprised at how well a dedicated SACD player will handle regular CDs. For example, Sony's low end $150 SACD changer (as well as previous universal players from Pioneer and Toshiba) uses the Burr-Brown 1791 digital-to-analog converter, which happens to be the same DAC used in Arcam's $800 CD72 (which also uses a Sony transport). That DAC is capable of decoding the 1-bit DSD signals from SACDs as well as the 16-bit PCM signals from CDs -- the SACD player happens to use both capabilities, while the Arcam only uses the PCM decoding.
I don't think there's any "sacrifice" involved here, since there's so much shared circuitry involved. Because of the SACD format's higher resolution, even low end SACD players use higher rated circuitry in the signal path than typical low end CD players.
-
I use my marantz to play cd's... they sound good
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woochifer
You'd be surprised at how well a dedicated SACD player will handle regular CDs. For example, Sony's low end $150 SACD changer (as well as previous universal players from Pioneer and Toshiba) uses the Burr-Brown 1791 digital-to-analog converter, which happens to be the same DAC used in Arcam's $800 CD72 (which also uses a Sony transport). That DAC is capable of decoding the 1-bit DSD signals from SACDs as well as the 16-bit PCM signals from CDs -- the SACD player happens to use both capabilities, while the Arcam only uses the PCM decoding.
I don't think there's any "sacrifice" involved here, since there's so much shared circuitry involved. Because of the SACD format's higher resolution, even low end SACD players use higher rated circuitry in the signal path than typical low end CD players.
I hear this all the time regarding the inexpensive Sony's and other brand multi- Cd players as well as SACD players.There's a theory that the newer CDP technology has crept into even the low-end Cd players and there's no longer a need to spend big money to get a good CDP(Redbook or SACD).I would consider that only part true at best as there is still some logic to getting what you pay for .Companies like Toshiba and Sony mass produce their audio products and make their money through sheer volume as opposed to outperforming the competition.I don't doubt they sound OK and qualify as a good bang for the buck.I guess I'm just old school and have a hard time believing that the $150 player which uses the same DAC as the Arcam can compete with it for Redbook playback.Arcam doesn't bother with SACD and focuses it's research and development on redbook playback .They will never be confused with a Sony when listening to one.There's so many other factors in how a unit is built like the quality of circuit boards,capacitors,filters,power supply,etc.If you took a Sony and an Arcam apart the difference in build quality would be clear the minute you got the shell off.The component needs to sound musical and that is where the art of CDP design comes in.That being said there is always the law of diminishing returns as you start to spend big money on audio equipment so when saying a unit like the Sony sounds really good I can only assume you mean it's good for the $150 investment.I bought a Sony 5 CD changer for my secondary stereo and it's really quite awful even though it's paired with a decent amp and speakers.I bought it for the 5 cd playback capability and got just what I paid for.It's not the SACD model though so not apples to apples there.Serious CD player manufacturers don't even bother with multi cd changers(there are exceptions like some very good and expensive Marantz units) and there's a reason.They want to put their focus on things that effect sound as opposed to convenience features.Sony and Philips have always made some of the most reliable transports,but Sony will never be confused with any of the serious audio manufacturers.Their strength is their video products not their audio products.In fairness I would say they are the best of the inexpensive brands most people think of when they think of electronics.I consider them to be reliable but that's about it.I am aware that Sony has an ES line that's more high end but I don't have any experience with it.I didn't even realize there are enough CD's available in SACD format for it to even be considered a serious alternative to Redbook CD's but I listen to mostly older music so maybe that's why I'm out of the loop on that one.I would think if Redbook CD's still make up the majority of whats available then a very good redbook player is going to provide you more service than an SACD player that only sounds it's best when playing the few SACD's you may own.Of course if you are a collector of SACD's you obviously need something to play them on so I am by no means suggesting there's no place in the market for these SACD units,just that the better CDP manufacturers also don't bother with SACD with a couple of exceptions so there must be a reason they make this conscious decision.If they felt they could make their units to the same standards(without driving up cost significantly)or making "compromises" to their Redbook playback while including SACD playback I would think more would.The Arcam 72T(now the 73T which uses wolfson 7840 DAC)was considered a groundbreaking player at it's price point of around $700 so when I suggest a player like this to someone I still feel they are at a price point where the return vs investment is very high.
-
Nice insight
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woochifer
...
I don't think there's any "sacrifice" involved here, since there's so much shared circuitry involved. Because of the SACD format's higher resolution, even low end SACD players use higher rated circuitry in the signal path than typical low end CD players.
Thanks, Wooch,
This under scores how advances in techology have been used to great effect in mass market products -- regardless of the motives of the manufactures who are, admittedly, not targeting the audiophile fringe.
My Sony SCD-CE775 is the immediate predeceasor of the Sony you alluded to, and is very good as a stock product. A bit of an industry sprung up modifying this unit whose goal was to bring it very close to high-end products. Note that the typical upgrades were maily to the analog chain, although some improved the clock. I passed up these mods because they would have tripled the total cost and I just didn't want to spend the case on them versus speakers and amps. This is about diminishing returns. :)
I'm not above blowing a litte dough to get fine improvements. I recently bought a used Assemblage DAC 1.5 for $75. (I've mainly used it with my circa 1991 top-line Technics SL-PS70 which makes a nice transport.) I notice as subtle but, I'm reasonalby convinced, real improvement in resolution, especially for HDCD discs for which the Assemblage has the decoder. Now I'm going to spring another $220 or so to have Parts Connexion upgrade the op amps, wiring, and RCA connectors.
But let's keep our eyes on prize, (or our ears anyway): reproduced sound that is more like the live experience. SACD bets CD because it is multi-channel. Multi-channel can do what stereo cannot, and this is evident even comparing a modest M/C setup with a much better stereo.
:16: :21: :19: :16:
-
2CH SACD is even better then rebook cds like the CCR SACD's,they are so good.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feanor
Thanks, Wooch,
This under scores how advances in techology have been used to great effect in mass market products -- regardless of the motives of the manufactures who are, admittedly, not targeting the audiophile fringe.
My Sony SCD-CE775 is the immediate predeceasor of the Sony you alluded to, and is very good as a stock product. A bit of an industry sprung up modifying this unit whose goal was to bring it very close to high-end products. Note that the typical upgrades were maily to the analog chain, although some improved the clock. I passed up these mods because they would have tripled the total cost and I just didn't want to spend the case on them versus speakers and amps. This is about diminishing returns. :)
I'm not above blowing a litte dough to get fine improvements. I recently bought a used Assemblage DAC 1.5 for $75. (I've mainly used it with my circa 1991 top-line Technics SL-PS70 which makes a nice transport.) I notice as subtle but, I'm reasonalby convinced, real improvement in resolution, especially for HDCD discs for which the Assemblage has the decoder. Now I'm going to spring another $220 or so to have Parts Connexion upgrade the op amps, wiring, and RCA connectors.
But let's keep our eyes on prize, (or our ears anyway): reproduced sound that is more like the live experience. SACD bets CD because it is multi-channel. Multi-channel can do what stereo cannot, and this is evident even comparing a modest M/C setup with a much better stereo.
:16: :21: :19: :16:
For a modest multi-channel set-up to best a much better stereo means you think that playing back your music through an A/V reciever and home theatre speakers is a better overall sound than playing back 2 channel redbook CD's on an excellent stereo which is a bizarre theory.Last I checked music was 2 channel and DVD/movie soundtracks were multichannel.If your home theatre plays back music better than your 2 channel stereo than you need a better stereo unless of course your A/V reciever is your stereo which in itself is a problem,so not having a killer Redbook CD player is the least of the problems.High fidelity audio playback has always been 2 channel audio which simply means playing back your music through 2 high quality speakers firing from directly in front of you not coming at you from 5 or 6 or 7 channels.I'm way too much of an audio purist for this thread so I will now leave you guys alone.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feanor
But let's keep our eyes on prize, (or our ears anyway): reproduced sound that is more like the live experience. SACD bets CD because it is multi-channel. Multi-channel can do what stereo cannot, and this is evident even comparing a modest M/C setup with a much better stereo.
:16: :21: :19: :16:
I think a lot of people will disagree with you on that one.... and I'm yet to be convinced that a mutlichannel set-up is inherently better than a 2 channel one.... keep in mind that for the budget spent on a crappy 5.1 setup you could easily get a good 2 channel setup (simple economics... since you're buying less than 1/3 of the number of speakers required for 5.1 you can get far better quality speakers for the money and the same applies for amplification as well).... so I really doubt that a modest mutichannel setup will outperform a quality stereo setup.... Good music is more about quality than quantity....
I'm not saying that I don't think Mutlichannel SACD can sound better than redbook CD, but just that I really doubt that you will be able to best a quality redbook setup with a SACD setup costing less or even the same amount....
-
Chill, 2-channel guys
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feanor
...
But let's keep our eyes on prize, (or our ears anyway): reproduced sound that is more like the live experience. SACD bets CD because it is multi-channel. Multi-channel can do what stereo cannot, and this is evident even comparing a modest M/C setup with a much better stereo.
I'm not going to duke it out with you on the subject. Let me say I listen 90% to my stereo system which is hugely better than my multi-channel which is just a modest HT. And of course 90% of my music collection is 2-channel. But every now and then I trot downstairs with two or three SACDs and listen for a hour or two.
With the best recordings, (and I'm talking classical music), the experience is strikingly different from stereo. It shows the M/C potential to me even though on my system the sound coming from each individual speaker is a good deal less good than my stereo system
-
I have to dissagree... but then again, I decided to build my system for 5ch+sub sacd's...
had I only built a 2 ch system at the time, I would have used the same speakers... had I not been interested in 5 ch sacd's... I probably would have gone with different surround speakers.. (probably the 806 or 705 rather than the 716...
now I know some of you have systems which play 2ch much better than my anthem/focal jm lab, but to me, it is what I like, and it plays 2ch and 6 ch sacd's better than my 2ch system in my room... (blame components)
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyB
For a modest multi-channel set-up to best a much better stereo means you think that playing back your music through an A/V reciever and home theatre speakers is a better overall sound than playing back 2 channel redbook CD's on an excellent stereo which is a bizarre theory.Last I checked music was 2 channel and DVD/movie soundtracks were multichannel.If your home theatre plays back music better than your 2 channel stereo than you need a better stereo unless of course your A/V reciever is your stereo which in itself is a problem,so not having a killer Redbook CD player is the least of the problems.High fidelity audio playback has always been 2 channel audio which simply means playing back your music through 2 high quality speakers firing from directly in front of you not coming at you from 5 or 6 or 7 channels.I'm way too much of an audio purist for this thread so I will now leave you guys alone.
HT speakers. 2CH speakers. Poop. Explain the difference between a set of 2CH speakers and the front mains in a HT? Is one speaker square or something?
-
To quote myself
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyB
For a modest multi-channel set-up to best a much better stereo means you think that playing back your music through an A/V reciever and home theatre speakers is a better overall sound than playing back 2 channel redbook CD's on an excellent stereo which is a bizarre theory....
BillyB, what I said was, "Multi-channel can do what stereo cannot, and this is evident even comparing a modest M/C setup with a much better stereo." I didn't say that a modest M/C was better overall than an excellent stereo.
The modest M/C does convey a sense of place and presence that no stereo can regardless of quality, (assuming a good recording). It moves you from the back of the hall to a 6th row, center seat. This is not the same as "better overall", however.
My stereo is of much higher technical quality than my HT system. There is a trade-off between the two, and 90% of the time I rather listen to the former.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyB
I hear this all the time regarding the inexpensive Sony's and other brand multi- Cd players as well as SACD players.There's a theory that the newer CDP technology has crept into even the low-end Cd players and there's no longer a need to spend big money to get a good CDP(Redbook or SACD).I would consider that only part true at best as there is still some logic to getting what you pay for .
I think you're placing way too much credence in the value of the price tag in determining performance. The performance difference between digital components is far narrower than between analog components. In the analog era, you could safely say that you get what you pay for. But, with digital components where measurable differences are at best negligible, that same "logic" does not hold up quite as well. You're paying a lot for subtle differences.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyB
Companies like Toshiba and Sony mass produce their audio products and make their money through sheer volume as opposed to outperforming the competition.I don't doubt they sound OK and qualify as a good bang for the buck.I guess I'm just old school and have a hard time believing that the $150 player which uses the same DAC as the Arcam can compete with it for Redbook playback.Arcam doesn't bother with SACD and focuses it's research and development on redbook playback .
What do you mean "can compete"? Of course, those lower cost CD players can compete. Since they measure almost identically within the audible range, any audible differences will be more subtle than obvious. Old school in the audiophile world IMO lies with analog components where the audible differences were obvious AND verifiable through measurements.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyB
They will never be confused with a Sony when listening to one.There's so many other factors in how a unit is built like the quality of circuit boards,capacitors,filters,power supply,etc.If you took a Sony and an Arcam apart the difference in build quality would be clear the minute you got the shell off.
Have you actually done this for yourself? Or is this just speculation on your part? You seem to equate mass production with inferiority. Although Sony is clearly pricing their products at the mass market, one of the advantages of mass production lies with cost reductions through economies of scale. Even Arcam realizes this, otherwise they would not purchase their transports from Sony in lieu of developing their own.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyB
Serious CD player manufacturers don't even bother with multi cd changers(there are exceptions like some very good and expensive Marantz units) and there's a reason.They want to put their focus on things that effect sound as opposed to convenience features.Sony and Philips have always made some of the most reliable transports,but Sony will never be confused with any of the serious audio manufacturers.Their strength is their video products not their audio products.In fairness I would say they are the best of the inexpensive brands most people think of when they think of electronics.I consider them to be reliable but that's about it.I am aware that Sony has an ES line that's more high end but I don't have any experience with it.
Here again, you're equating "expensive" with "serious." Marantz IS a mass market manufacturer. Until recently, they were one of Philips' nameplates. Now, they are in a conglomerate with Denon and Boston Acoustics (among others). Are their multidisc changers acceptable to you because they're more expensive? Or because you've actually compared them with other disc changers on the basis of their sound quality?
When you say that Sony will "never be confused with any of the serious audio manufacturers" you ignore the many high end components that they do manufacture. They might constitute a small portion of their overall sales, but they do manufacture a sizable range of components that are obsessively spec'd and yes, very expensive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyB
I didn't even realize there are enough CD's available in SACD format for it to even be considered a serious alternative to Redbook CD's but I listen to mostly older music so maybe that's why I'm out of the loop on that one.I would think if Redbook CD's still make up the majority of whats available then a very good redbook player is going to provide you more service than an SACD player that only sounds it's best when playing the few SACD's you may own.Of course if you are a collector of SACD's you obviously need something to play them on so I am by no means suggesting there's no place in the market for these SACD units,just that the better CDP manufacturers also don't bother with SACD with a couple of exceptions so there must be a reason they make this conscious decision.If they felt they could make their units to the same standards(without driving up cost significantly)or making "compromises" to their Redbook playback while including SACD playback I would think more would.The Arcam 72T(now the 73T which uses wolfson 7840 DAC)was considered a groundbreaking player at it's price point of around $700 so when I suggest a player like this to someone I still feel they are at a price point where the return vs investment is very high.
For someone who purportedly cares about "serious" sound reproduction, I'm a bit surprised that you haven't taken a look at SACD or DVD-A and tried it out for yourself. For all of the features going into high end CD players, they cannot get around the fundamental 44.1/16 resolution of the CD format itself. With a digital recording, nearly all CDs require some form of downsampling during the mastering process. With SACD or DVD-A, the resolution of the source matches the playback format. Like I said before, the analog signal paths on dedicated SACD players are already spec'd higher than normal because they have to handle the wider range of the SACD format, and nearly all of that circuitry is shared. Without actual hands-on experience with these SACD players, you're speculatng quite a bit over the "compromises" that they incorporate, and what, if any, detrimental effect this has on sound quality with regular CDs.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by shokhead
HT speakers. 2CH speakers. Poop. Explain the difference between a set of 2CH speakers and the front mains in a HT? Is one speaker square or something?
I have seen square ht speakers hehe
|