[Community of A/V Enthusiasts]
High End Two-channel SACD player or Multi-channel SACD through Mass Market Receiver: Which would you choose?
I just finished writing a review of the Marantz SA-7S1 SACD player. It outputs two-channel fully balanced analog (to be published Monday, July 20). It is two-channel only. No 5.1 output either analog or digital. It is $7,000 and it tested spectacularly. With the OPPO BDP-83 universal player, you can send 5.1 SACD digitally to receivers via HDMI which will decode it. The signal coming out of the receiver will not have as low a distortion figure as the Marantz SA-7S1 player used with a top quality two-channel integrated amplifier. Which would you choose?
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by T. Rodney Tatum on -
The Oppo. My ears can't hear THAT well. However; If I were in the market for a stand-alone SACD player, and money was not the issue, I would favor The Sony SCD-XA5400ES player. At $1,500.00, it's still not for the faint of heart, but I would save fifty-five hundred dollars and I wouldn't have to neglect my multi-channel SACD's, either. I have a Sony stand-alone SACD player that I don't use. My PS3 plays the media just fine and without all of those cables cluttering my already cluttered racks.
-
Permalink Reply by Kevin Griffiths on -
OPPO for me as well since I already own an 83 and have owned OPPOs since they first came on the market. With the 83 I am hearing more than ever before on SACD, CD, DVD and BD.
I have demo'd a Linn and did notice a difference for the better for the test SACDs. At least by my standard. Again the price was impossible to swallow.
I truly enjoy the sound from the 83 and for my overall approach to music and video the OPPO is the way to go.
-
Permalink Reply by Jerry Sole on -
Oppo
-
Permalink Reply by Gary Walker on -
It really depends on the application. If your using the unit in a home theater, I'd have to go with the Oppo. There are too many great multichannel SACDs around to pass them up in a multichannel listening area. For a 2 channel area, its not so clear. I haven't heard the Marantz, but the Oppo isn't too shabby as a 2 channel SACD player using it's 2 channel analog out , and wouldn't likely be the weak link given the use of a mass-market receiver. In such a system, I'd really have to doubt that the superiority of the Marantz would be all that apparent, particularly $6500 worth. Though I can't imagine too many people using a $7000 SACD player with a mass market receiver.
-
Permalink Reply by Al Norberg on
-
I have a Sony Scd Ce-595 player that is 5.1 analogue and is also great at spiining cd's.It cost me 100 bucks and is very reliable.This unit surpassed my NAD 502 which has since stopped working.The 5 channel is fantastic on Dark Side of the Moon.Norah Jones sounds good also.
-
Permalink Reply by HiRez1394 on -
I would choose the OPPO-receiver combination not only because of the lower price point – I can’t swing a $7,000 player, no matter how good it is -- but also because SACDs are (usually) produced with a multi-channel mix for a wider sound stage. If I am going to listen to a SACD, then I would prefer to listen to how the SACD production team intended it and not have the multi-channel format down-mixed into two channels (regardless of how the soundtrack might sound in stereo).
-
Permalink Reply by Jim Milton on -
5.1 trumps 2.0. Even with slightly higher distortion with the Oppo setup, the benefit of high resolution surround would be much more preferred by the listener. I'd argue that the increased distortion is still inaudible anyway. And the extra coin you save can go into better speakers!
Then again...I would not be using a mass market receiver.
-
Permalink Reply by Gary Walker on
-
If the Oppo and a mass market reciever sound as good as a $7000 Marantz and a good integrated, there's something seriously wrong with this hobbie.
Granted some SACD's are great in 5.1 playback, but with a mass market reciever, I'm not sure you'd really get their full benifit.
-
Permalink Reply by Jim Milton on
-
Gary Walker said:If the Oppo and a mass market reciever sound as good as a $7000 Marantz and a good integrated, there's something seriously wrong with this hobbie.
Granted some SACD's are great in 5.1 playback, but with a mass market reciever, I'm not sure you'd really get their full benifit.
Perhaps, but even budget receivers now have HDMI 1.3, Audessey EQ and moderate amplification. The new 2010 Onkyos will be sporting HDMI 1.4. It's not like the stuff from the 70's anymore. Most mass market stuff performs well these days. There is at least one Sony that will take native DSD directly. So it becomes a question of 1) very good 2 channel SACD, or 2) pretty good 5.1 channel SACD. I'm of the persuasion that a good realistic surround sound is more enjoyable than 2 channel...which leaves me flummoxed as to why Marantz went 2 channel in the first place.
-
Permalink Reply by T. Rodney Tatum on
-
Clearly, Marantz is targeting the "stereo only" niche which is quite a few enthusiast. Some people don't believe the music is pure unless they can here the crackling sound of a diamond dragging across vinyl. Except in rare cases, most high-end stereo rigs cost more than most surround sound setups. 100 large can't get you a set of the most expensive speakers, but a L/R/C, surrounds and subs can be killer for far less. The two channel cult following is significant. Even with the advances in solid-state amplification over the years, they STILL sell alot of tube amps. Despite the clarity of digital connections, some purist STILL connect their sources via analog interconnects.
Jim Milton said:Gary Walker said:If the Oppo and a mass market reciever sound as good as a $7000 Marantz and a good integrated, there's something seriously wrong with this hobbie.
Granted some SACD's are great in 5.1 playback, but with a mass market reciever, I'm not sure you'd really get their full benifit.
Perhaps, but even budget receivers now have HDMI 1.3, Audessey EQ and moderate amplification. The new 2010 Onkyos will be sporting HDMI 1.4. It's not like the stuff from the 70's anymore. Most mass market stuff performs well these days. There is at least one Sony that will take native DSD directly. So it becomes a question of 1) very good 2 channel SACD, or 2) pretty good 5.1 channel SACD. I'm of the persuasion that a good realistic surround sound is more enjoyable than 2 channel...which leaves me flummoxed as to why Marantz went 2 channel in the first place.
-
Permalink Reply by Chris Heinonen on -
In the next few years, once I move and have the space for it, I plan to run a 2 channel setup in addition to my home theater setup, and it will probably be a planar speaker setup. For my home theater and and TV watching, the setup that I have now works well, and I'll keep improving on it, but I would also like to have a room that's just for music (well, I might have to throw my office in here to have enough space in the house) and not worry about surrounds, different versions of HDMI, new codecs, but just a high quality, analog system. In that case, the Marantz, or the Sony XA5400ES that is supposed to be fantastic, would make for a perfect player.
I often recommend to friends that want to get started on a better system to start out with a 2.0 setup, where they can invest more at the start and then add-on later if they like it. Some have been fine with 2.0 and decided they didn't want those extra speakers, and some have upgraded later, but I think every single one of them was happy that they invested the money early in higher quality equipment.
-
Permalink Reply by Gary Walker on
-
When we're talking about music, It's still by far and large a stereo world. As I noted, there are some multi-channel recordings that truly benifit from multi-channel playback. This may be more true in other genres, but I listen to 95% classical and most of the remainder is jazz,so I can only speak to those. You could count the recordings on your fingers that really sound a lot better in a multi-channel mix.
Probably half of my listening is redbook CDs,always in stereo, and a lot of my SACD listening is also in stereo.
Certainly for movies, 5.1 or 7.1 is where it's at, but music is still primarily stereo. This may change at some point in the future, but we aren't there yet.
Granted, mass market recievers have improved a lot with equalization, but give me a top of the line 2 channel rig for critical listening.
© 2010 Created by Secrets of Home Theater and HiFi.
