Results of an SACD dem
Posted by: Mr_Sukebe on 09 January 2004
Have a scan at this thread:
http://www.zerogain.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2484
It's my summary of a dem I did yesterday of a mid to low priced SACD playerd against an Arcam 93 CD player.
I intend to take a home dem on this SACD player, at which point I'll add further comments about how it performs against my CD5i.
http://www.zerogain.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2484
It's my summary of a dem I did yesterday of a mid to low priced SACD playerd against an Arcam 93 CD player.
I intend to take a home dem on this SACD player, at which point I'll add further comments about how it performs against my CD5i.
Posted on: 09 January 2004 by HTK
Thanks for that. I know Marantz have a reputation for pulling rabbits out of hats but the price of this SACDP is small change! How do they do it?
I'll be very interested to see how this player stacks up against a CD5i. Got to admit having a soft spot for Marantz - happy memories and all that....
Cheers
Harry
I'll be very interested to see how this player stacks up against a CD5i. Got to admit having a soft spot for Marantz - happy memories and all that....
Cheers
Harry
Posted on: 09 January 2004 by Basil
Also at zeroGain, this thread is hilarious.
Posted on: 09 January 2004 by greeny
Mr Sukebe
I've read your review and would just say that you cannot assume that the CD and SACD layer of hybrid disks have been mastered to the same standard.
I seem to recall several articles taking about the DSOTM disk in particular having a poor CD layer. The manufacturers having thre incentive to make sure the SACD layer sounds better.
Anyway, you are quite sensibly having a home dem where you should be able to better guage whether the Marantz on SACD is better/worse than your CD5i
I've read your review and would just say that you cannot assume that the CD and SACD layer of hybrid disks have been mastered to the same standard.
I seem to recall several articles taking about the DSOTM disk in particular having a poor CD layer. The manufacturers having thre incentive to make sure the SACD layer sounds better.
Anyway, you are quite sensibly having a home dem where you should be able to better guage whether the Marantz on SACD is better/worse than your CD5i
Posted on: 09 January 2004 by Simon Perry
Interesting to see what Mick gets up to at other Forums / Fora / whatever.
Simon
Simon
Posted on: 10 January 2004 by Mr_Sukebe
Well I now have the Marantz 6400 on home dem, thought it would be worth giving everyone a quick update.
Lets get the not so interesting stuff out of the way first.
The start of the test was to see how much better the Marantz was over my existing Pioneer 535 DVD player, whilst playing DVDs. Frankly I didn't think there was much in it, although my missus felt there was some small visual improvement.
In addition, the Marantz does have component out (though no progressive scan). Not that this would make much difference to me as my Sony TV doesn't support either.
So not a significant improvement for DVD.
So, onto the audio side of things.
The system it was used in was:
Naim CD5i (just about run in now, but probably still a little more to come)
Naim 112 pre amp powered by a Hicap power supply
Naim Nait 5 integrated being used as the power amp section (the pre-amp section being by-passed). This is clearly not a long term solution and will be replaced when I find a Nap 150 at sensible prices. Don't laugh too much though, as I didn't find a Nap 200 to be that much better than the Nait power amp section.
Linn Kabers, upgraded with Neodymium tweeters and mounted on concrete slabs.
All the electronics is on a mana stand, NACA5 speaker cabling
Comparing the Marantz to the CD5i on CD was pretty short lived and the result is hardly going to surprise anyone. The CD5i didn't just outperform the marantz, it completely butchered it. So don't expect to be able to replace a good existing CD player with one.
Now, the SACD test, i.e. the interesting bit. This was the Marantz playing an SACD, with the CD5i playing the CD equivalent track.
Well my money goes with the Marantz/SACD solution.
The difference was certainly not as vast as the Arcam to Marantz, infering that at least in my system/opinion, that I'd find the CD5i more than capable of seeing off an Arcam 93.
The differences were pretty much of the same type as those I found during the Arcam/Marantz comparison, ie.
- Less treble hash with SACD
- Better placement of instruments with SACD
- The instruments in question are more "fleshed out" with SACD, changing them from a two dimensional pastiche to a 3D hologram making them far more "believable".
So, overall the Marantz still shines, although it's not great shakes as a CD player and really only slightly better than say a Tosh 220 on DVD (I've tried both against my ageing Pioneer).
The key fact is that on SACD, it genuinely IS better than a MUCH more expensive CD player.
My guess is that this is more down to the format than the player though, although experience with the cheapy Pioneer 565 still shows that some skill is required.
Long term, well whilst I found the SACD player better, it wasn't MASSIVELY better. Strikes me that it would be interesting to purchase some more SACDs, on the grounds that it's only a matter of time before someone like Naim releases a vaguely reasonably priced unit (unlike the multi-thousand price units from Krell, Linn and Meridian that are now out).
So, here's hoping that the SACD catalogue will improve in the nearish future.
Lets get the not so interesting stuff out of the way first.
The start of the test was to see how much better the Marantz was over my existing Pioneer 535 DVD player, whilst playing DVDs. Frankly I didn't think there was much in it, although my missus felt there was some small visual improvement.
In addition, the Marantz does have component out (though no progressive scan). Not that this would make much difference to me as my Sony TV doesn't support either.
So not a significant improvement for DVD.
So, onto the audio side of things.
The system it was used in was:
Naim CD5i (just about run in now, but probably still a little more to come)
Naim 112 pre amp powered by a Hicap power supply
Naim Nait 5 integrated being used as the power amp section (the pre-amp section being by-passed). This is clearly not a long term solution and will be replaced when I find a Nap 150 at sensible prices. Don't laugh too much though, as I didn't find a Nap 200 to be that much better than the Nait power amp section.
Linn Kabers, upgraded with Neodymium tweeters and mounted on concrete slabs.
All the electronics is on a mana stand, NACA5 speaker cabling
Comparing the Marantz to the CD5i on CD was pretty short lived and the result is hardly going to surprise anyone. The CD5i didn't just outperform the marantz, it completely butchered it. So don't expect to be able to replace a good existing CD player with one.
Now, the SACD test, i.e. the interesting bit. This was the Marantz playing an SACD, with the CD5i playing the CD equivalent track.
Well my money goes with the Marantz/SACD solution.
The difference was certainly not as vast as the Arcam to Marantz, infering that at least in my system/opinion, that I'd find the CD5i more than capable of seeing off an Arcam 93.
The differences were pretty much of the same type as those I found during the Arcam/Marantz comparison, ie.
- Less treble hash with SACD
- Better placement of instruments with SACD
- The instruments in question are more "fleshed out" with SACD, changing them from a two dimensional pastiche to a 3D hologram making them far more "believable".
So, overall the Marantz still shines, although it's not great shakes as a CD player and really only slightly better than say a Tosh 220 on DVD (I've tried both against my ageing Pioneer).
The key fact is that on SACD, it genuinely IS better than a MUCH more expensive CD player.
My guess is that this is more down to the format than the player though, although experience with the cheapy Pioneer 565 still shows that some skill is required.
Long term, well whilst I found the SACD player better, it wasn't MASSIVELY better. Strikes me that it would be interesting to purchase some more SACDs, on the grounds that it's only a matter of time before someone like Naim releases a vaguely reasonably priced unit (unlike the multi-thousand price units from Krell, Linn and Meridian that are now out).
So, here's hoping that the SACD catalogue will improve in the nearish future.
Posted on: 10 January 2004 by Geoff P
Interesting review.
Here is a long term "review" (or opinion) of my own experience with SACD. Hope it is interesting
I have now sampled 4 different players of SACD. That may sound extravagant, but was actually not so terribly expensive.
It all started 4 years ago or so when SACD first came out & I was living in California which supposedly being an advanced society latched onto this new format and made media available right away.
Anyway in order I have had:
1) A cheapish SONY DVD/SACD/CD player ($299US in Circuit City)
2) SONY Really serious 2 channel SACD/CD XA555ES (back in europe now)
3) Trade in to a SONY multichannel version SACD/CD XA333ES (still available for comparison)
4) Just arrived a DENON 2900 bought to combine all formats DVD-V/DVD-A/SACD (and DVD-RW/photo CD/JPEG pics on DVD etc)
Listening to the way they render(ed) SACD and of course having to speak partly from notoriously unreliable memory it has been immediately obvious that they each produced a different final sound. That should be no surprise, especially with price differences factored in.
Underneath that each of these players gave out a common "SACD" sound which I assume to be intrinsic to the recording technique. There is no doubt that a feeling of extra space and clarity is there and for some reason, which again I assume is inherent in the recording process there is an extra thightness and slightly drier feeling to the bass line. I should add that this type of sound is heard across a range of music styles and record labels which supports the conclusion that it is the DSD process and not the recording engineer which brings these effects.
These attributes do bring a feeling of a more vinyl like sound both in 2 channel and in multichannel (which is not my default choice). There is quite a catalog of SACD titles out there now, especially including those hybrid discs which are marketed with the emphasis more on the CD layer such as the Rolling Stones etc.
As to the individual performance:
1) Cheap is cheap. DVD OK, CD crap, SACD quite a nice sound clearly showing thats where most of the money went
2) Pretty good CD player, a bit fruity sounding and was used for CD until the CDX2 entered the arena at which point it slunk away with it's tail between it's legs. SACD a different story. This was clearly Sony's affordable HiFi seperate version of the twice as expensive 777ES. The 555ES had the best 2 channel SACD sound I have heard (damn my stupid self for selling it to go multichannel). On SACD the 555ES just seemed to remove the feeling from the music that there was a silver disc involved. It was good enough to be better than the "bare" CDX2 playing the CD layer, though a close run thing. It was also possible to play the CD layer on the 555ES and get a 'decent but clearly inferior sound to the same layer out of the CDX2.
3) Not quite up to the standard of the 555 on stereo SACD but still gives out the Sony "signature" SACD sound with excellent clarity and mostly manages to sound as convincing on SACD as the CDX2 does on CD, not really better, just a different sound balance which has a pleasing sense of "air".
4) Denon doing what Sony helped invent. It is immediately clear that the Sony "signature" is gone to be replaced by a warmer but slightly less differentiated sound. It is pleasing to listen to and since the DVD playback attributes of the Denon are very good it is also better VFM. However the fine sense of clarity and air from the SACD layer heard from both the 555 & 333 is diminished and clearly not in competition with the CDX2 doing CD.
Then there is multichannel SACD. Here the comparison is reduced to 3) & 4). On SACD multichannel the 333ES has the edge over the Denon which is perhaps as it should be since the Sony is dedicated to SACD and cost more. Both produce the multichannel sound successfully. By that I mean whilst it is an artificial sound which you have to accept, there is depth and an added ambient sense which is appealing. The bass is well delivered, it does'nt center around the abilities of the sub-woofer and just shifts forward from the position perceived in stereo. The clarity and "air" is still there aswell. IMHO SACD makes a better "fist" of the multichannel sound than DVD-A.
So in conclusion the Sony dedicated SACD players I have tried do the best job especially for stereo SACD which brings a peformance equivalent to or very slightly inferior to the CD layer from the same disc on the CDX2.
In multichannel again the Sony rendition feels musically more pure and less sound effects oriented than the Denon which has to do DVD & DVD-A aswell. That said the Denon is very good as a DVD player and creates a great sound off of DVD-A and DTS music discs.
As for the CDX2. Well it is like slipping on a comfortable pair of old slippers when you return to pure CD stereo, from SACD multichannel. I have to admit a couple of hours of multichannel is enough. Pure CD is an all the time listening experience. 2 channel SACD also has a pleasing though different stereo sound which is on a par with CD, but I am still saving for an XPS2 and I expect the addition of that will raise the CDX2 clearly to the top.
regards
GEOFF
Here is a long term "review" (or opinion) of my own experience with SACD. Hope it is interesting
I have now sampled 4 different players of SACD. That may sound extravagant, but was actually not so terribly expensive.
It all started 4 years ago or so when SACD first came out & I was living in California which supposedly being an advanced society latched onto this new format and made media available right away.
Anyway in order I have had:
1) A cheapish SONY DVD/SACD/CD player ($299US in Circuit City)
2) SONY Really serious 2 channel SACD/CD XA555ES (back in europe now)
3) Trade in to a SONY multichannel version SACD/CD XA333ES (still available for comparison)
4) Just arrived a DENON 2900 bought to combine all formats DVD-V/DVD-A/SACD (and DVD-RW/photo CD/JPEG pics on DVD etc)
Listening to the way they render(ed) SACD and of course having to speak partly from notoriously unreliable memory it has been immediately obvious that they each produced a different final sound. That should be no surprise, especially with price differences factored in.
Underneath that each of these players gave out a common "SACD" sound which I assume to be intrinsic to the recording technique. There is no doubt that a feeling of extra space and clarity is there and for some reason, which again I assume is inherent in the recording process there is an extra thightness and slightly drier feeling to the bass line. I should add that this type of sound is heard across a range of music styles and record labels which supports the conclusion that it is the DSD process and not the recording engineer which brings these effects.
These attributes do bring a feeling of a more vinyl like sound both in 2 channel and in multichannel (which is not my default choice). There is quite a catalog of SACD titles out there now, especially including those hybrid discs which are marketed with the emphasis more on the CD layer such as the Rolling Stones etc.
As to the individual performance:
1) Cheap is cheap. DVD OK, CD crap, SACD quite a nice sound clearly showing thats where most of the money went
2) Pretty good CD player, a bit fruity sounding and was used for CD until the CDX2 entered the arena at which point it slunk away with it's tail between it's legs. SACD a different story. This was clearly Sony's affordable HiFi seperate version of the twice as expensive 777ES. The 555ES had the best 2 channel SACD sound I have heard (damn my stupid self for selling it to go multichannel). On SACD the 555ES just seemed to remove the feeling from the music that there was a silver disc involved. It was good enough to be better than the "bare" CDX2 playing the CD layer, though a close run thing. It was also possible to play the CD layer on the 555ES and get a 'decent but clearly inferior sound to the same layer out of the CDX2.
3) Not quite up to the standard of the 555 on stereo SACD but still gives out the Sony "signature" SACD sound with excellent clarity and mostly manages to sound as convincing on SACD as the CDX2 does on CD, not really better, just a different sound balance which has a pleasing sense of "air".
4) Denon doing what Sony helped invent. It is immediately clear that the Sony "signature" is gone to be replaced by a warmer but slightly less differentiated sound. It is pleasing to listen to and since the DVD playback attributes of the Denon are very good it is also better VFM. However the fine sense of clarity and air from the SACD layer heard from both the 555 & 333 is diminished and clearly not in competition with the CDX2 doing CD.
Then there is multichannel SACD. Here the comparison is reduced to 3) & 4). On SACD multichannel the 333ES has the edge over the Denon which is perhaps as it should be since the Sony is dedicated to SACD and cost more. Both produce the multichannel sound successfully. By that I mean whilst it is an artificial sound which you have to accept, there is depth and an added ambient sense which is appealing. The bass is well delivered, it does'nt center around the abilities of the sub-woofer and just shifts forward from the position perceived in stereo. The clarity and "air" is still there aswell. IMHO SACD makes a better "fist" of the multichannel sound than DVD-A.
So in conclusion the Sony dedicated SACD players I have tried do the best job especially for stereo SACD which brings a peformance equivalent to or very slightly inferior to the CD layer from the same disc on the CDX2.
In multichannel again the Sony rendition feels musically more pure and less sound effects oriented than the Denon which has to do DVD & DVD-A aswell. That said the Denon is very good as a DVD player and creates a great sound off of DVD-A and DTS music discs.
As for the CDX2. Well it is like slipping on a comfortable pair of old slippers when you return to pure CD stereo, from SACD multichannel. I have to admit a couple of hours of multichannel is enough. Pure CD is an all the time listening experience. 2 channel SACD also has a pleasing though different stereo sound which is on a par with CD, but I am still saving for an XPS2 and I expect the addition of that will raise the CDX2 clearly to the top.
regards
GEOFF
Posted on: 10 January 2004 by Edouard
Really interesting review,
...I'm always impressed with your posts Geoff, and this is interesting for me as I would like to get a naim CDP for my naim system (102/hc/180, which I got new in july 2000...after listening to a friend's nait2 which had impressed me SO much!!!. i have actually an CDP Onkyo Integra 7911. I really enjoyed the music with this set up but i now can feel I'm getting frustrated with the CDP'sperformance...I guess from what I read on this forum that to upgrade my system i should purchase first a naim CDP and then upgrade the pream...82 or 282, I didn't read much here about the comparaison between those two preamp...and later on may be the new 250.
Well to come back to CDP and SACD ...
you said:
"On SACD the 555ES just seemed to remove the feeling from the music that there was a silver disc involved. It was good enough to be better than the "bare" CDX2 playing the CD layer,.."
"but I am still saving for an XPS2 and I expect the addition of that will raise the CDX2 clearly to the top."
how about the price of an CDX2+XPS2...compare to the one of a good SACD player like the Sony 555ES??? It seemed like to get the analogue sound with a CDP is very very expensive...
...but we do have so many Cds...on our shelves!
...well for me the question is: is it worth buying a brand new CDX2 today?
As for the CDX2+XPS2...I would think that someone ready to spend that much money would go for the CDS3 as the extra cost isn't that much after going that far. I suppose that the XPS2 isn't purcha
...I'm always impressed with your posts Geoff, and this is interesting for me as I would like to get a naim CDP for my naim system (102/hc/180, which I got new in july 2000...after listening to a friend's nait2 which had impressed me SO much!!!. i have actually an CDP Onkyo Integra 7911. I really enjoyed the music with this set up but i now can feel I'm getting frustrated with the CDP'sperformance...I guess from what I read on this forum that to upgrade my system i should purchase first a naim CDP and then upgrade the pream...82 or 282, I didn't read much here about the comparaison between those two preamp...and later on may be the new 250.
Well to come back to CDP and SACD ...
you said:
"On SACD the 555ES just seemed to remove the feeling from the music that there was a silver disc involved. It was good enough to be better than the "bare" CDX2 playing the CD layer,.."
"but I am still saving for an XPS2 and I expect the addition of that will raise the CDX2 clearly to the top."
how about the price of an CDX2+XPS2...compare to the one of a good SACD player like the Sony 555ES??? It seemed like to get the analogue sound with a CDP is very very expensive...
...but we do have so many Cds...on our shelves!
...well for me the question is: is it worth buying a brand new CDX2 today?
As for the CDX2+XPS2...I would think that someone ready to spend that much money would go for the CDS3 as the extra cost isn't that much after going that far. I suppose that the XPS2 isn't purcha
Posted on: 10 January 2004 by Edouard
Really interesting review,
...I'm always impressed with your posts Geoff, and this is interesting for me as I would like to get a naim CDP for my naim system (102/hc/180, which I got new in july 2000...after listening to a friend's nait2 which had impressed me SO much!!!. i have actually a CDP Onkyo Integra 7911. I really enjoyed the music with this set up but i now can feel I'm getting frustrated with the CDP's performance...I guess from what I read on this forum that to upgrade my system i should purchase first a naim CDP and then upgrade the pream...82 or 282, I didn't read much here about the comparaison between 82 and 282,how about 282 and 52?...and later on may be the new 250.
Well to come back to CDP and SACD ...
you said:
"On SACD the 555ES just seemed to remove the feeling from the music that there was a silver disc involved. It was good enough to be better than the "bare" CDX2 playing the CD layer,.."
"but I am still saving for an XPS2 and I expect the addition of that will raise the CDX2 clearly to the top."
...you didn't mention the price of a CDX2+XPS2...compare to the one of a good SACD player like the Sony 555ES??? It seemed like to get the analogue sound with a CDP is very very expensive...
...but we do have so many Cds...on our shelves!
...well for me the question is: is it worth buying a brand new CDX2 today?
As for the CDX2+XPS2...I would think that someone ready to spend that much money would go for the CDS3 as the extra cost isn't that much after going that far. I suppose that in most case the XPS2 is purchased later on which give time to save the money for the XPS2...
regards,
Edouard
...I'm always impressed with your posts Geoff, and this is interesting for me as I would like to get a naim CDP for my naim system (102/hc/180, which I got new in july 2000...after listening to a friend's nait2 which had impressed me SO much!!!. i have actually a CDP Onkyo Integra 7911. I really enjoyed the music with this set up but i now can feel I'm getting frustrated with the CDP's performance...I guess from what I read on this forum that to upgrade my system i should purchase first a naim CDP and then upgrade the pream...82 or 282, I didn't read much here about the comparaison between 82 and 282,how about 282 and 52?...and later on may be the new 250.
Well to come back to CDP and SACD ...
you said:
"On SACD the 555ES just seemed to remove the feeling from the music that there was a silver disc involved. It was good enough to be better than the "bare" CDX2 playing the CD layer,.."
"but I am still saving for an XPS2 and I expect the addition of that will raise the CDX2 clearly to the top."
...you didn't mention the price of a CDX2+XPS2...compare to the one of a good SACD player like the Sony 555ES??? It seemed like to get the analogue sound with a CDP is very very expensive...
...but we do have so many Cds...on our shelves!
...well for me the question is: is it worth buying a brand new CDX2 today?
As for the CDX2+XPS2...I would think that someone ready to spend that much money would go for the CDS3 as the extra cost isn't that much after going that far. I suppose that in most case the XPS2 is purchased later on which give time to save the money for the XPS2...
regards,
Edouard
Posted on: 10 January 2004 by Geoff P
quote:
"On SACD the 555ES just seemed to remove the feeling from the music that there was a silver disc involved. It was good enough to be better than the "bare" CDX2 playing the CD layer,.."
"but I am still saving for an XPS2 and I expect the addition of that will raise the CDX2 clearly to the top."
how about the price of an CDX2+XPS2...compare to the one of a good SACD player like the Sony 555ES??? It seemed like to get the analogue sound with a CDP is very very expensive...
...but we do have so many Cds...on our shelves!
...well for me the question is: is it worth buying a brand new CDX2 today?
As for the CDX2+XPS2...I would think that someone ready to spend that much money would go for the CDS3 as the extra cost isn't that much after going that far. I suppose that the XPS2 isn't purcha
Edouard
I installed the CDX2 as my first Naim upgrade (I listened to the CD5 + HiCap during the same demo and the CDX2 won). The CDX2 was bolted on to a 112/HiCap/150 at the start and over time this was upgraded in stages as follows 282 - then 250mk2 - then Supercap.
The next upgrade would naturally be to add an XPS2 to get the complete picture so to speak.
IMHO this represents a nicely balanced classy Naim setup.
Going to the CDS3 would start the ball rolling all over again if I were not carefull and I would be after a 252 and then a 300. That's dangerous to my monetary health.
I also feel the "bare" CDX2 is a great CDP and stands up well against vinyl ( apart from the most sophisticated and expensive varieties). It ain't cheap by the standards of the SACD players (the 555ES and the later 333ES came in at roughly half the price and the others were coresspondingly less money) but it is a seriously good CDP and can be upgraded. BTH I expect the 2nd hand value will be quite good if i ever do get tempted up to the CDS3. That said the Sony SACD players are very good AS SACD PLAYERS but cannot get near the CDX2 when used as standard CD players.
As always you have to do the demo when you are laying out this sort of money.
regards
GEOFF
Posted on: 10 January 2004 by Edouard
thanks for the answer Geoff,
I know the power supply is the last thing you upgrated...
but...you never considered the s/h 52 when upgrating the pream ...or you didn't want to purchase a 2nd hand preamp?...did you had the demo?...
is the 282 much better than the 82?
regards
Edouard
I know the power supply is the last thing you upgrated...
but...you never considered the s/h 52 when upgrating the pream ...or you didn't want to purchase a 2nd hand preamp?...did you had the demo?...
is the 282 much better than the 82?
regards
Edouard
Posted on: 10 January 2004 by David O'Higgins
Listen you people, I have been through all of these questions - and the answer is that every step of the path is actually worth it - provided you can find a dealer who can make it happen - for you and he, commercially.
Posted on: 10 January 2004 by Mr_Sukebe
Here's my final thoughts on the SACD dem, please excuse the length of this post and the fact that it's not quite so focused as the others.
I still have the Marantz SACD unit and couldn't resist trying it out with another variety of tracks this afternoon.
Yes it still has that "believability" that I mentioned previously, but during this more extended listening session, I couldn't help but notice that I couldn't manage to listen to most of the songs for more than 2-3mins at a time before getting bored.
Must have taken me nearly 30 mins before it clicked.
Yes, this player does some things very well, but for all that, it's totally p1ss boring. Whilst conducting a side by side dem against the CD5i, I was concentrating on identifying differences, and missed on the the essential elements, i.e. whether I actually enjoyed listening to it.
Swapping back to CD on the Naim player, and it was all smiles again, plenty of foot tapping and some brilliant music. Nope, didn't do the imaging quite as well, but didn't half make my CDs sound great.
Following this, I had a good think about things and came to the conclusion that to own both an SACD and CD player would actually be bad news. The simple point being that when switching between them, it would simply highlight that they both have their own strengths and weaknesses, which long term is likely to simply annoy me to death.
So, the SACD player goes and I'll return to just focusing on a single format. Of course the good news is that the cash I save will be used later on and even better stereo based system.
Extrapolating my thoughts on the SACD front, and I've also decided to ditch the AV sound kit, but that's another thread I think.
I still have the Marantz SACD unit and couldn't resist trying it out with another variety of tracks this afternoon.
Yes it still has that "believability" that I mentioned previously, but during this more extended listening session, I couldn't help but notice that I couldn't manage to listen to most of the songs for more than 2-3mins at a time before getting bored.
Must have taken me nearly 30 mins before it clicked.
Yes, this player does some things very well, but for all that, it's totally p1ss boring. Whilst conducting a side by side dem against the CD5i, I was concentrating on identifying differences, and missed on the the essential elements, i.e. whether I actually enjoyed listening to it.
Swapping back to CD on the Naim player, and it was all smiles again, plenty of foot tapping and some brilliant music. Nope, didn't do the imaging quite as well, but didn't half make my CDs sound great.
Following this, I had a good think about things and came to the conclusion that to own both an SACD and CD player would actually be bad news. The simple point being that when switching between them, it would simply highlight that they both have their own strengths and weaknesses, which long term is likely to simply annoy me to death.
So, the SACD player goes and I'll return to just focusing on a single format. Of course the good news is that the cash I save will be used later on and even better stereo based system.
Extrapolating my thoughts on the SACD front, and I've also decided to ditch the AV sound kit, but that's another thread I think.
Posted on: 11 January 2004 by Geoff P
quote:
I know the power supply is the last thing you upgrated...
but...you never considered the s/h 52 when upgrating the pream ...or you didn't want to purchase a 2nd hand preamp?...did you had the demo?...
is the 282 much better than the 82?
Edouard
No I did'nt visit the Olive series equivalents. I came into the Naim game late enough that I started with series 5. I have read numerous threads here discussing the Olive sound and concluding that it is more "In yor face" than the new series and decided since I was liking the sound of the new reference series it was probably not the best choice to "mix & match" between the two. I
must admit if I ever do decide to go to the next level I might consider a 52 as the price of the 252 is somewhat astronomic for me.
Hoping to stay away from that decision
GEOFF
Posted on: 11 January 2004 by Jean-Marc
quote:
Originally posted by Edouard:
...I guess from what I read on this forum that to upgrade my system i should purchase first a naim CDP and then upgrade the pream...82 or 282...
Salut Edouard,
not much French people around here, always nice to welcome a new gallic member
FYI, I have started my Naim career with a CD3.5/Nait 3 combination. Then started an upgrade path to 92/180, 92/hicap/180, then home-demoed the 102 and decided to go for a s/h 82.
Well, and the CDP, I hear you ask? At this stage, 'twas still the 3.5. It was time to upgrade it as the the 3.5 was clearly not up to the job, the system was not musically satisfying, IMHO.
Given the amount of money already spent, I just sit back and think (for a few minutes...). I decided to go straight on to the CDS2, a decision I haven't regreted ever since.
Especially, as I have upgraded to 52/135s in the following 12 months.
Go to the best CDP you can afford and don't look back! It will save you quite a lot of cash in the long term.
Hope this helps
Jean-Marc
(French with good tastes, ie loving British Audio
)Posted on: 11 January 2004 by Edouard
Bonjour Jean-Marc!
merci it feels good to be welkomed! my wife is from Toronto so I'm used to British surrounding!
I have started my naim career by accident...I met someone in year 2000 who let me for demo at home his nait2, needless to say that I wasn't impressed by the way it looked...an awful black shoe boxe! I had it at home for weeks side by side with a huge Onkyo Integra. Well it didn't took me long to notice that the nait2 didn't just outperform the Onkyo, it completely butchered it! then I tried to get some advices as to know what to order in the naim's range...and I got a 102-highcap-180...I needed the power because my room is big (60 metersquares) with no demo! I had just bought a Integra Onkyo CDP, so I kept it and I was quite happy the way it sounded with naim. The new stuff worked better with my Kef Reference 2-2 which I had just purchased to, but the tiny nait2 was really amazing the way it worked in the system and for the price it's a much much better value per money!
How does the 82 sound compare to the 102? and how much better your system sounded with the 82-hc-180? have you listen to the 282? It sounds that the CDX2 is a great CDP, and I don't think I would like to spend the price of a CDS3...
à bientôt
Edouard
merci it feels good to be welkomed! my wife is from Toronto so I'm used to British surrounding!
I have started my naim career by accident...I met someone in year 2000 who let me for demo at home his nait2, needless to say that I wasn't impressed by the way it looked...an awful black shoe boxe! I had it at home for weeks side by side with a huge Onkyo Integra. Well it didn't took me long to notice that the nait2 didn't just outperform the Onkyo, it completely butchered it! then I tried to get some advices as to know what to order in the naim's range...and I got a 102-highcap-180...I needed the power because my room is big (60 metersquares) with no demo! I had just bought a Integra Onkyo CDP, so I kept it and I was quite happy the way it sounded with naim. The new stuff worked better with my Kef Reference 2-2 which I had just purchased to, but the tiny nait2 was really amazing the way it worked in the system and for the price it's a much much better value per money!
How does the 82 sound compare to the 102? and how much better your system sounded with the 82-hc-180? have you listen to the 282? It sounds that the CDX2 is a great CDP, and I don't think I would like to spend the price of a CDS3...
à bientôt
Edouard
Posted on: 12 January 2004 by Jean-Marc
quote:
How does the 82 sound compare to the 102? and how much better your system sounded with the 82-hc-180?
Edouard
well, there's a huge step between the 102 to 82, and then another huge step between 82 and 52.
Though, I was not overwhelmed by the 82/180 combination, 102/180 is OK, but I think the 82 is better paired with a 250. Ye olde system coherence.
JM
Posted on: 23 January 2004 by Geoff P
Eric
Viewed dispassionately and logically what you say is correct, but note what I said in my final paragraph:
Like a significant portion of serious HiFi geeks I have a large collection of straight CD's most of which will never be issued as SACD's. I am not going to deny myself the pleasure of listening to these in the best possible way so I have spent a larger sum of money to gain the extra pleasure I get from listening via a fine CDP such as the CDX2.
The people pushing the new formats are trying too hard. They have put the emphasis on the gimmicky "multichannel" aspect of these formats, whereas the enhanced stereo posibilities should be better explored. As it is right now a large chunk of what is issued on SACD & DVD-A whilst it has a certain appeal in small doses does not hold me with the passion that quality CD replay does.
So to each his own.
regards
GEOFF
Viewed dispassionately and logically what you say is correct, but note what I said in my final paragraph:
quote:
As for the CDX2. Well it is like slipping on a comfortable pair of old slippers when you return to pure CD stereo, from SACD multichannel. I have to admit a couple of hours of multichannel is enough. Pure CD is an all the time listening experience. 2 channel SACD also has a pleasing though different stereo sound which is on a par with CD, but I am still saving for an XPS2 and I expect the addition of that will raise the CDX2 clearly to the top.
Like a significant portion of serious HiFi geeks I have a large collection of straight CD's most of which will never be issued as SACD's. I am not going to deny myself the pleasure of listening to these in the best possible way so I have spent a larger sum of money to gain the extra pleasure I get from listening via a fine CDP such as the CDX2.
The people pushing the new formats are trying too hard. They have put the emphasis on the gimmicky "multichannel" aspect of these formats, whereas the enhanced stereo posibilities should be better explored. As it is right now a large chunk of what is issued on SACD & DVD-A whilst it has a certain appeal in small doses does not hold me with the passion that quality CD replay does.
So to each his own.
regards
GEOFF
Posted on: 24 January 2004 by kuma
quote:
Originally posted by Eric Turcotte:
On SACD track the Sony play "like" CDX2 but the Sony is 3.5 times cheeper. That make me cry! 8-/ We can compare materials close price .. but 3.5 times cheeper is not even close. Compare CD player 1349$ is like a CD5i vs CDX2. CD5i can't be compared to CDX2 it's simply not the same step. I agree, good CD player can be usefull to play your current collection but for the future, this format will slowly die.
I'm not surprised SACD can sound good against redbood playback on a high-end machine.
Even a 150$ Sony NS500, when a SACD is played, the gap between hosts of hi-end machines narrow down a quite a bit. Are they better sounding? I didn't think so. But it was enough to convince few unsuspecting civilians. I always thought bare CDX2 never sounded complete for a 5K machine. ( even with its wonderful virtues, it is quite expensive as I see it compared to other comparatively priced CD players ) so, I sort of understand Geoff's impression with costlier Sony SACD player.
That said, all SACD players I have heard and had in the house were slaughtered on the redbook playback by hi-end redbook only CD players.