Hi-Rez Highway

New high resolution SACD releases, players and technology.

Return to Hi-Rez Highway

Michael Fremer Review of Marantz SA-11S2 was disappointing

98.227.175.194
Posted on January 25, 2009 at 06:46:32
Greg Gale
Audiophile

Posts: 140
Joined: May 19, 2001
 The review that Michael Fremer had the of new Marantz SA-11S2 was in my opinion not very positive about the player. Some of the areas he commented on was the player had a compact soundstage and that decays dropped off before being fully resolved regardless of the filter settings. He also went on to say that the on a Bob Dylan CD the voice was thick and less than 3 dimensional and that the bass was extended but a bit soft.

He compared the player against the Cary 306 which was "pristine and lightning fast and decays seem to continue for impossibly long times". "This resulted in astonishing resolution of recorded detail, along with breathtaking transparency on a deep and ultrawide soundstage".

Has anyone compared these two players with similar feelings? I have a Marantz SA-14 which I like a lot but have been considering upgrading to the new Marantz SA-11S2 but after this review, I will probably go a different direction towards a new Ayre or the Esoteric X-05.

RE: Michael Fremer Review of Marantz SA-11S2 was disappointing, posted on October 30, 2009 at 01:16:42
robertopisa
Audiophile

Posts: 141
Location: Pisa, Italy
Joined: October 17, 2006
 IMHO, it is crucial what you put under the SA-11S2. I use partially inflated tubes under the SA-11S2 and the sound is great: I did not encounter the drawbacks mentioned in the post.

I showed the picture to Ken Ishiwata at TopAudio 2009 here in Italy and he was not dispappointed at all. He adviced me to check if the CD player is perfectly on level, which now I can do in few seconds (it is just matter of practice).

-Roberto

RE: Michael Fremer Review of Marantz SA-11S2 was disappointing, posted on February 13, 2009 at 09:42:52
Greg Gale
Audiophile

Posts: 140
Joined: May 19, 2001
 I have finally had a chance to really compare the Esoteric X-05 to my Marantz SA14 which I have owned for 7 years and by the way which has given me great enjoyment and which has also operated flawlessly on Redbook and SACD.

My wife and I listened to all types of music from Jazz to Classic Rock comparing the sound on both Redbook and SACD. I must say I was amazed at the sound difference between the two players with the Esoteric revealing much more of the actual timbre of the music and much more transparent. The natural decay of the instruments and texture with the Esoteric was much more alive sounding. The sound of cymbals was very analog like with a natural decay in reproduction versus the Marantz which sounded more closed in versus the X-05. I have also noticed in the bass the sound is cleaner and richer with texture in the stringed instruments that I can clearly discern.

The difference was even greater on SACD between the two players with the Esoteric sounding alive and creating a more 3-D sound stage.

Of course there is a substantial difference in price between the two players $3K versus $6K so I would expect to hear a difference.

Also the overall build quality of the Esoteric VRDS Neo drive mechanism is so smooth and absolutely silent. Whether or not the drive is responsible for some of the sound improvement I do not know but the engineering in this player is incredible.

The Marantz SA14 also is built extremely well and the Sharp drive mechanism used in the SA14 is extremely fast to switch tracks and read not only CD but SACD as well.

I still want to compare this player to the newer Marantz and the Ayre but at least in comparison to the SA14 I prefer the Esoteric.
RE: Michael Fremer Review of Marantz SA-11S2 was disappointing, posted on February 12, 2009 at 15:49:05
John Atkinson
Reviewer

Posts: 1901
Location: New York
Joined: November 24, 2003
 Michael's review is now available online.


John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

RE: Michael Fremer Review of Marantz SA-11S2 was disappointing, posted on February 20, 2009 at 11:10:52
Hiro
Audiophile

Posts: 305
Joined: November 16, 2008
 I posted a response to your SA-11S2 review on puresuperaudio

Mr. Fremer should just stick to reviewing vinyl and quit hating on SACD imho


--
pro-CD trolls bark, but the hi-rez SACD caravan goes on...

Important issue with Marantz players is BREAK IN TIME., posted on February 1, 2009 at 07:15:46
Jack Seaton
Audiophile

Posts: 13448
Location: Spokane, Washington
Joined: October 1, 2004
 My SA-14 and SA-8001 both took forever to fully break in and the difference between a freshly opened new player and one that has 4 months on it is HUGE.

Friends with SA-11's have told me that they took forever to break in.

Mikey Fremer isn't, ... Well, let's just say that I highly doubt that he took this into consideration (he probably had zero knowledge of the extreme break in period for Marantz players) and I'd be willing to bet that it had less than 1000 hours of use on it when he wrote the review.
RE: Important issue with Marantz players is BREAK IN TIME., posted on February 1, 2009 at 08:49:16
vinylguy
 i definitely did not have 1000 hours of break in on the player but I did have about 300 hours. How do you propose a reviewer gets 1000 hours on a piece of gear when there are deadlines and other pieces of gear to be reviewed (and a life to lead). If a player needs 1000 hours of break-in, it's the responsibility of the manufacturer to break it in. However, I don't think more break in would have changed the player's basic sonic character. It was on the warm and forgiving side, like many phono cartridges. No matter how long they break in they will have that basic character...the Marantz was a very "listenable" player, especially given how many bad sounding CDs there are. Like forgiving cartridges, the player will make it easier to listen to many mediocre sounding discs, but it will not reveal the greatness in the best ones.....on the other hand the really revealing and detailed players like that Cary (much more expensive of course), will reveal just how bright and awful sounding a large percentage of CDs are....MF

Part of the reviewing process is knowing when a piece of gear quits changing (when it is fully broken in)., posted on February 1, 2009 at 12:09:25
Jack Seaton
Audiophile

Posts: 13448
Location: Spokane, Washington
Joined: October 1, 2004
 How can you give an accurate detailed description of a player if it isn't fully broken in?

If all you had was 300 hours on the SA-11, then I'd have to say (due to my past first hand experience with 3 other Marantz players) that the SA-11 that you reviewed was not fully broken in when you reviewed it.

Why doesn't your Marantz contact know about the lengthy break in period and relay that info to you? Probably because he isn't into sound. It isn't as though there is a hearing acuity test of sorts before a manufacturer like Marantz hires another marketing or sales guy, is there?

That is why consumers rely upon professional reviewers that know better, that do have the acuity to realize when a piece of gear has finally settled in and then it can be properly evaluated. I mean, how could anyone base evaluations made during the break in period? Gear goes through good days and bad days during the break in period and blanket assumptions that a sonic characteristic will remain after the break in period are, ... Well, a little unrealistic.

I know absolutely nothing about review schedules, but I do know that the Marantz players transform once they are fully broken in. I'm sure that if we did a poll of Marantz owners that you'd hear the same from them.

nah ..., posted on February 1, 2009 at 12:30:20
TBone
Audiophile

Posts: 2645
Joined: April 5, 2000
 Despite your objection to excessive breakin, in my experience, MF got this review dead correct. I've heard enough top Marantz players over the years to become familiar with their family type sound - which MF described perfectly.

Look, I'm very partial to Linn digital myself, but even they have a family type sound (very different to Marantz) irrespective of breakin.

No amount of breakin will totally offset an inherited, and rather obvious family character.

TB1

By that logic, we could just make one blanket stereotype review for every manufacturer and just submit it, ..., posted on February 1, 2009 at 13:36:41
Jack Seaton
Audiophile

Posts: 13448
Location: Spokane, Washington
Joined: October 1, 2004
 ... every time a new product is released.

Look, the "house sound" arguement only goes so far. The SA-14 and SA-11 are Worlds apart. Same thing with the SA-8001 and the SA-11 played back to back in my system. The only thing is, the SA-8001 had over 4 months break in time and the SA-11 only had 2 weeks, so I don't wish to make any real judgements about the SA-11 V-2 because it wasn't fully broken in.

Once I hear an SA-11 fully broken in, I'll give you my opinion.

RE: Michael Fremer Review of Marantz SA-11S2 was disappointing, posted on January 29, 2009 at 23:03:51
musicalsound
Audiophile

Posts: 49
Joined: January 24, 2008




You might also want to consider the Esoteric SA-50 which is coming out (not sure when though). It has USB input for computer playback as well.

http://fr.cinenow.com/videos/2023-esoteric-sa-50-e-03-a-03-nouveaux-produits-2009



----------------------------------
Marantz SA-7S1 -> Pathos Logos -> Martin Logan Vantage

RE: Michael Fremer Review of Marantz SA-11S2 was disappointing, posted on January 31, 2009 at 04:25:33
audioAl
Audiophile

Posts: 921
Location: So. Texas
Joined: December 16, 2007
 That USB input is Sweet, a bud of mine has Esoteric 40 I believe, he may be interested in this. His Linn stereo setup is great.
Vista Ultimate 32bit/Diamond XS Dac/ Sterovox coaxial line in to Insignia Amp/Cambridge SoundWorks& Infinity RS 1001 Speakers

RE: Michael Fremer Review of Marantz SA-11S2 was disappointing, posted on January 29, 2009 at 13:34:50
Dr.Phil
Audiophile

Posts: 195
Location: Virginia
Joined: May 5, 2008
 Take his review as a grain of salt. Your ears and system is what counts. Michael is so anti digital that just reading this review brought that forth.

If you live and die by a reviewer you’re not learning from your own experience and living a life "that others know more than me"

I heard this unit and I own the SA-7S1 and this unit is well worth the money and then some.

My advice is give it a listen yourself. I had Esoteric and from what you would read they sound warm and liquid, they did not sound that way to me at all just the opposite and I use McIntosh gear...so go figure.

The Sa-7S1 on my gear by the way sounds open and natural, good speed and the dam thing just makes music...in the end that what we are after right? I would say I might agree with the positive feedback review, I owned mine many months before that review came out.

Mike needs to stick to his analog love affair...and by the way having owned many, many LP's over the years I can tell you a lot of them sounded like compressed crap, starting in the 70's on ward.

Also I would caution that a lot of LP's being pressed today could be from digital masters. So if digital sucks then the LP should right? Well no because LP's and Turntables have the sonic stamp also.

Be smart and start learning this hobby and save yourself some grief along the way. I use reviews as entertainment and learning what is new it ends there.

PJB

RE: Michael Fremer Review of Marantz SA-11S2 was disappointing, posted on February 1, 2009 at 08:59:39
analogcorner
Reviewer

Posts: 108
Location: New Jersey
Joined: July 29, 2005
 I agree with Dr. Phil about my review of the Marantz SA-11S2 up to a point: of course you need to go listen for yourself! Reviews should always be read with a grain of salt. However, if a reviewer is at it for a long time and continually provides unreliable sonic impressions, he's not likely to be taken seriously by anyone, even for, as Dr. Phil says "entertainment value." I've been at this for 20 plus years and I stand by my record of providing reasonably accurate sonic assessments of the gear I've reviewed. Some mistakes? Yes but judging by the feedback I get (plenty!)...I think I get it right most of the time. What someone likes or dislikes is not the issue, how something sounds is. Different people like different kinds of sound. Some like warm and soft, some like fast and bright (er). Some people visited my place who liked the Marantz more than the Cary BUT all agreed that the Cary was faster, tighter, brighter and more detailed while the Marantz was warmer, softer, lusher and easier to listen to over the long haul. As for my preference for analog...what does that have to do with anything? Answer: nothing. I am enthusiastic about the sound of that Cary player, I own a good CD player, I bought a Sooloos system and I have a lot of CDs.....that I actually listen to. Yes, I write a column about analog and I'm an enthusiast but let's not stereotype. After all, my wife shows dogs. I go to the dog shows. The judges have to feel the dogs' balls. Part of the job. Do I think these judges go around feeling dogs' balls all day? NO. I don't listen only to analog!

RE: Michael Fremer Review of Marantz SA-11S2 was disappointing, posted on February 1, 2009 at 09:35:29
Dr.Phil
Audiophile

Posts: 195
Location: Virginia
Joined: May 5, 2008
 Your points are well taken. My quibble is that you really love your analog and that is understandable, but you also have taken constant shots at digital. Even in the review you could not help yourself...smile!

I think it is fair to say most readers now how passionate you are for analog and not so hot about digital. I heard the SA-11S2 in my system and it was not overly warm sounding, having owned the Cary 306 SACD I would have to say the Cary was more dynamic and upfront sounding, the Marantz 11-S2 more laid back, better depth and imaging in a "natural" sense.

Now I own the SA-7S1 and it is in another playing field then either the Cary or the SA-11S2 thought either are great units on their own right.

The SA-7S1 reproduction is stellar, I have had mine for a year or so and I never even thing about a new unit...why? It is so coherent and allow each recording to shine in it's own light or I should say production quality.

It is more dynamics then the 11S2 and up their with my old Cary 306 SACD but where it is better it is it's sound stage, tone and a “rightness” to the sound. Also terminating the BNC input takes the noise lower and improves the sound across the board perhaps the same improvement on the SA-11S2 also?

I have owned LP’s and I enjoyed them, they had their good and bad points also as time went on the pressing because cheaper and the sound quality started to suffer. I believe in the analog world that we who collected LP’s and purchased the first runs of the pressing the sound was about as good as it gets.

The struggle with digital at first was the technology was new and how to use it correctly has been an on going experience much like the 78 to LP era, acetates to tape etc. Some of current re-mastered discs finally using the best master tapes sound wonderful yet different from my LP of the same title, in some ways pitch and tone is better, but then perhaps it was my turntable the PD777 and the dynavector ruby cart.

I just think really the whole idea of the hobby should be not only the equipment but putting together a system that when you go home you can relax and enjoy, be it analog or digital medium.

To me from my experience of collecting music in both formats it always gets back to the production and mastering. If that sucks then you are dead in the water and all the gear in the world is not going to improve the source.

I just think it is “silly time” to say one format is superior to the other, tubes vs. solid state anyone….smile!! Both can be superb in a different way if designed correctly.

PJB

I read Michael Fremer's Review of Marantz SA-11S2 in Stereophile as well, posted on January 29, 2009 at 18:09:56
Teresa
 And went and looked for it but I had already put it in the Recycled bin.

These are some of my impressions at the time and I could very well be wrong since I can't refer back to the article as it is not in my possession.

1) I was shocked Marantz let Michael Fremer review as he dislikes CDs almost as much as I do. In fact Michael Fremer, Stan Ricker and a handful of others are my heros, as they were among the first to have the guts to tell the awful truth about the damage CD does not music.

2) He did compare to the more expensive Cary Audio SACD player, but the comments he made about CDs, compared to their LP versions will always come up short to anyone who doesn't care for the "sonic signature" of redbook CD.

3) I don't remember him saying anything bad about the SACD playback, if I remember correctly the SACD playback was very close to the Cary Audio SACD playback. And he has done positive reviews in the past of SACD software comparing it favorably to the LP versions.

At least he was willing to listen to and compare CDs on both units, I would have not done so. The only disagreement I've had with Michael Fremer as of late is the coping of LPs to CD-Rs, he believes that one can capture the sonic signature of a phono cartridge even with the loss in resolution. I have heard John Elison CD-Rs made from Reference Recordings LPs and they are not as good as LPs, however I do find LPs to 24 Bit 96kHz DVD-R's to come pretty close,

Some of the reasons a Digitally mastered LP sounds better than the CD version:
1) The digital master is higher resolution than 44.1kHz,
2) LPs reproduce most of the ultrasonics of high resolution digital but with more noise, at 40kHz in vinyl playback about 50% of the signal is noise.
3) LP playback adds a degree of warmth that is missing from CD.

Finally I agree reviews should be used for the entertainment and learning values, not the basis of purchasing decisions. Trying the equipment oneself and listening to it is still the best way. But reviews can help narrow down the field a little.

Give me high resolution or remain silent,
Teresa

Stereophile has Michael Fremer's Review of Marantz SA-11S2 up and, posted on February 12, 2009 at 19:49:07
Teresa
 it turns out my memory was good & comments correct.

Michael Fremer DID NOT say anything bad about SACD:

"The Bill Cunliffe Trio's Live at Bernie's (SACD, Groove Note GRV1009-3), which was also released in a two-disc 45rpm Direct to Disc set, was recorded closely miked at Bernie Grundman Mastering, in the common space outside Bernie's mastering room. I attended the recording session, which was also captured directly to DSD. The sound is of ultra-high quality, though not "audiophile" in the sense of "two microphones in a big space." In his mix, engineer Michael C. Ross spread the drum kit across the soundstage; he also placed mikes inside the piano, then spread that instrument's sound across the stage as well.

The Marantz reproduced this exciting-sounding SACD with the inviting warmth and somewhat narrowed soundstage with which it rendered other discs. This helped this recording's sound to jell pleasingly, while the Cary spread the drum kit and piano across a vast expanse of lateral space, and emphasized the piano's percussive aspects over its harmonic structure. When drummer Joe La Barbera attacked his cymbals, the Cary precisely pinpointed the location of each, and with great focus. The Marantz's reaction time felt somewhat slower, its focus not quite as sharp."

Remember the Cary SACD player costs more than twice as much.

"The Marantz delivered inviting sound, especially from SACDs. It produced solid, full-bodied, well-textured images on a relatively compact soundstage. Its overall attack was a bit soft and almost tube-like, while, using any one of the three digital filters, decays dropped off before being fully resolved, though each filter was beneficial, depending on the quality of the recording

Especially from SACDs is politically correct way of saying not with CDs. I would be a bit concerned about the short decay of notes and the smaller soundstage of course once again he is comparing to an ultra expensive Cary SACD player. It is possible the Cary has very long decay and an extremely large sonic soundstage.


Give me high resolution or remain silent,
Teresa

Rhetorical question?, posted on February 15, 2009 at 12:23:02
TBone
Audiophile

Posts: 2645
Joined: April 5, 2000
 >>It is possible the Cary has very long decay and an extremely large sonic soundstage.<<

Yes, that already been stated, and IS completely OBVIOUS!!!

But do you have any real knowledge (obviously you don't) of why this might be so?

Why are some players (regardless of format) capable of developing bigger / deeper soundstages, while unravelling lower level details that others players routinely mask?

OK, since you're obviously clued to true hi-end, let me help you ... some players offer superior noise floor characteristics, easily heard in a truely capable high-end system - irregardless of format.

So please, can you stop pretending that you have the required knowledge to properly debate, any format, with Fremer.

TB1

Where do you get the impression I have not heard expensive equipment?, posted on February 15, 2009 at 17:09:52
Teresa
 I am sure the Cary Audio SACD player is wonderful playing SACDs but playing CDs it will still sound like CD but smoother and as you stated possibly a larger soundstage than a cheaper CD player, but no way will it emulate the sound quality of SACD. That is like asking a Nakamichi cassette deck to sound as good as 2 Track 15IPS Reel to Reel tape. It is not going to happen in the universe we live in.

Remember the order of importance:
1) Resolution
2) Build Quality

I have heard $50,000 stereos and $5,000 CD players from all decades of CDs existence. The most expensive SACD player I've owned was the $1,699 Xindak SCD-2 and my current Yamaha Universal "Giant Killer's" DVD-S1700 and DVD-S1800 are superior in nearly every single aspect but especially in mechanical quality as the transports are noise-free whisper quiet and trouble-free and play every disc perfectly.

I'll now give you a few clue's, it's the analog components that are after the digital conversion that influence things such as imaging and soundstaging, smoothness of tone, etc. the better the build quality the better the sound. SOTA components make SACD sound even more realistic but it totally wasted on CD as CD is too low in resolution, it is crippled by it's 44.1kHz sampling frequency. There is no such thing as a high resolution CD player, just an expensive CD player.

Were it not for 24 Bit 96kHz PCM DVDs and later DSD via SACDs, I would still be listening to analog only as low resolution digital is not and has never been an option for me.

I have been writing as long as Michael Fremer has, I even had my own print magazine in the 1970's called "The Audio Iconoclast", owned my own music business "Aesthetic Audio" that released pre-recorded audiophile cassettes licensed from UK's Merlin Fidelity + duplicated by MFSL. I used to sell stereo equipment. And I have used nearly every stereo format ever made including 8 Track cartridges, so if anything I am over qualified. You just do not like my conclusions about the CD format at any price range, to me it is just not music.


Give me high resolution or remain silent,
Teresa

please, don't preach your silly endless loop anti-cd shtick to me ..., posted on February 15, 2009 at 21:01:32
TBone
Audiophile

Posts: 2645
Joined: April 5, 2000
 it's meaningless, I know better!

Geez, even after I supplied you the correct answer, you still couldn't comprehend the concept of equipment based transparency & individual noise floor characteristics.

It's obvious, you have very limited real world experience with hi-end equipment and therefore - hi-end sound requirements.

However, this fact, doesn't seem to stop you from pretending otherwise.

TB1

Expensive CD players are not high resolution, no matter how well built!, posted on February 16, 2009 at 20:06:35
Teresa
 they are crippled by the 44.1kHz sampling rate. You know nothing about high end audio or high resolution sound.

Let me say it one more time, in oder of importance:
1) Resolution
2) Build Quality

There is no such thing as a high resolution CD player only expensive CD players.

the term: "high resolution CD" is a oxymoron.


Give me high resolution or remain silent,
Teresa

Known facts ..., posted on February 17, 2009 at 02:57:13
TBone
Audiophile

Posts: 2645
Joined: April 5, 2000
 You have limited experience with expensive CD players; you have limited experience with expensive SACD players; you have VERY limited experience with hi-end analog; you have little experience with hi-end gear in every possible regard, including sound quality.

However, you certainly do have considerable pretender experience, but ...

TB1
Untrue on all counts, why do you make up this stuff?, posted on February 17, 2009 at 04:10:24
Teresa
 Mr. CD lover, I have heard lots of high-end equipment in all formats. I have heard Cary audio tubed CD players and guess what they are a little smoother, but they still sound like f**king CDs! There are not too many speakers more expensive than the Wilson's and I've heard those, I've heard Acoustacs, Merlin's, Klipshorns (the big corner ones), Energy's, KEF's, Magneplaner's and just most other brands.

I am getting SICK of your PRO-CD posts on the high resolution highway and your consent insults about my stereo equipment in all formats. You are a very sorry excuse for a human being!

CDs are ultra low resolution and to pretend otherwise is to lie to yourself!



Give me high resolution or remain silent,
Teresa

Lots?, posted on February 17, 2009 at 10:45:44
TBone
Audiophile

Posts: 2645
Joined: April 5, 2000
 >>I have heard lots of high-end equipment in all formats.<<

Lots?

You mentioned a few Cary products and a few expensive speakers, none of which you've heard within the context of your own mid-fi system.

Sounds to me that your entire hi-end experience is based on one afternoon visit to an audio store.

TB1



I told you many, many times I am not rich and do not have money to throw around?, posted on February 17, 2009 at 14:29:04
Teresa
 I do the best with what I have, and I do deeply enjoy all formats with the single exception of CD. CD is unacceptable IMHO at any price!

Besides high end stores, I've been to audio shows including CES and a few peoples homes.

It seems funny to me that one does not need super high end equipment to enjoy SACDs, DVD-Audios, 24/96 downloads, LP, Reel to Reels or cassettes but for some odd reason they need super high end equipment to enjoy CDs. That is just the stupidest idea that you pro-CD posters have put forth and I DO NOT FOR ONE MINUTE BELIEVE IT!!!! I can hear the sonic signature of even expensive CD players in stores and at shows I do not need to bring them home to torture myself with them.

Give me high resolution or remain silent,
Teresa

figures ..., posted on February 17, 2009 at 16:06:22
TBone
Audiophile

Posts: 2645
Joined: April 5, 2000
 >>Besides high end stores, I've been to audio shows including CES and a few peoples homes.<<

Wow, you can list your entire hi-end experience on the back of a business card.

TB1

Plus my system is "affordable" high end and REAL high resolution., posted on February 17, 2009 at 17:55:35
Teresa
 I will admit live music sounds more real, but not by much especially when playing a great SACD or an audiophile LP.

My system reproduces ultrasonics up to 45kHz
My speakers are flat to within 3dB to 45kHz, my pre-amp to 80kHz and my power amp to 100kHz, so I am reproducing SACDs, DVD-Audios and LPs ultrasonics up to 45kHz. Thus my system is perfect for high resolution sources. The limiting factor is my EMIT tweeters only go to 45kHz, someday I may try a super tweeter that goes to 100kHz, then my system will go to 80kHz the frequency roll-off of my tubed pre-amp.

Pick on someone who actually has a low resolution system that only goes to 20kHz, there are plenty out there! Mine is DESIGNED for high resolution sources!

And my system has such excellent resolving power that I can easily hear the difference between low resolution CD and high resolution digital sources such as SACD! A lot of listeners have a hard time hearing this difference because their systems DO NOT have enough resolution!

BTW What the hell is your problem?









Give me high resolution or remain silent,
Teresa

yeah, yeah yeah ..., posted on February 17, 2009 at 18:33:36
TBone
Audiophile

Posts: 2645
Joined: April 5, 2000
 >>And my system has such excellent resolving power<<

That's a matter of perspective, because system expectations are based on actual experience, and our experiences differ widely.

In my opinion, your system is comparable to my bedroom system ...

Source TT/Rega RB300/Nagoaka MP50s
Rega Planet CDP (w/captive cardas power cord mod)
NAD 1020 pre-amp (w/major mods)
ATI 1502 (w/minor mods)
B&W speakers (xover mods)
Kimber Silver IC & Audioquest speaker (shotgunned)
API PLC, and a proper sturdy rack w/some attention to vibration control.
(BTW, when this equipment was in my video system, it once included a Marantz 8400 SACD player)

... with approx. similar resolving power.

Teresa, as good as they both sound - neither your system or my bedroom system have the nearly enough resolving power to compete with a truly refined hi-end system - using any format.

TB1

No way dude, you are far, far, far off base, posted on February 17, 2009 at 21:09:06
Teresa
 There is NOTHING in that bedroom system except a CD player, YUCH!!!!! Totally unacceptable, the least you should have is an SACD player or a turntable.

Your bedroom CD only system is a total joke, how dare you compare it to my high resolution high quality system! My system plays high resolution formats (all of them) your bedroom only plays ultra low resolution 44.1kHz PCM.

I would say my system is higher resolution than your main system as my system has no problem revealing the difference between low resolution 44.1kHz PCM and high resolution digital and yours does. It could be your Energy Connoisseurs speakers which are down 3dB at 23kHz? You really need a speaker that goes out to at least 40kHz to hear everything on your SACDs and other high resolution sources.

I couldn't find the specs for your Classe pre and power amps so I don't know if they are suitable for high resolution audio or not. I'll keep my tubed AMC pre-amp who frequency response extends to 80kHz and my Adcom GFA-555II whose frequency response extends to 100kHz and delivers 350 watts per channel into my 4 ohm Infinity Reference Standard Kappa 7's which I like way better than any Energy speaker I've ever heard (I used to sell Energy speakers).

Like I've said before pick on someone who has a low resolution system limited to 20kHz. That could almost be yourself as you are limited to 23kHz. LOL!!!

Your Linn Ikemi DOES NOT PLAY SACDs! Do you even have an SACD player? One is not listed in your system. Indeed the Oddyssy Source turntable is the only high resolution I see in your entire system.

So I guess you really are a true troll.


Give me high resolution or remain silent,
Teresa

Don't you know what a Rega RB300 is?, posted on February 17, 2009 at 23:13:30
TBone
Audiophile

Posts: 2645
Joined: April 5, 2000
 You use meaningless specs to augment your fictional position, unlike you, I'm going to use actual experience to qualify my position ...

(BTW, your comprehension skills are very poor ... my bedroom system does indeed list a superb turntable. Actually 2 'tables qualify, both once owned by UHF magazine as reference tables (Source & Alphason Sonato (not listed in my profile))).

As for your comparison to my main system, c'mon, get a grip ...

You'd have to be a complete moron to compare your Adcom with 2 pure class A biased mono-blocks (DR3s). It's simply not a fair comparison. Consider this, the very wide bandwidth, dynamic tube-like DR3s replaced my otherwise excellent SIM W5 amp, which would've trump your Adcom with relative ease. Hell, my bedroom systems ATI 1502 is superior to your Adcom.

No credible audiophile would consider comparing our amplifiers, both the W5 and the DR3s would offer FAR superior resolution in every dimension, in every capacity, at any frequency. Likewise with the DR6, easily superior to an AMC, nothing in your system can duplicate the sonic quality of its phono-stage.

The gap widens considerably with source components, my highly refined, very dynamic analog rig would make your 'table, and your SACD player, sound remarkably ordinary and totally mid-fi in direct comparison. It has done just that, many times, to a variety of digital players (inc SACD) - all of which are far more resolute than your meager $400 Yamaha.

Which bring us back to the CDP issue. The Ikemi is far superior to your Yamaha in many important catagories, with any format. Far greater transparency, dynamic ability, instrumental impact, producing a much wider and deeper 3D soundstage - something your system is incapable of reproducing compared to any good hi-end system. The Ikemi bettered a variety of SACD players, including the Sony SACD777es (which was in my system for months in direct comparison).

As for my Energys, they're the much rarer original Cons that were 3db down at ~35khz. Very heavy, relatively expensive, and totally refined speakers. In fact, UHF magazine (who use SACD, CD & LP for reference) still use them today within a reference video system, and my Cons are highly modified, offering significantly better sonics than their stock version.

And, BTW, IIRC, both my Classe components offer wide bandwith to 100Khz, so that instantly dismisses your very lame hi-rez bandwidth arguement.

The rest is academic, far superior cabling, connections, dedicated line conditioning, dedicated lines, dedicated ground, dedicated room, anti-vibration racks, wall racks, Neuance platform, and many other devices, etc etc etc.

You have little to compare.

To conclude this totally silly useless comparison, the most telling tale concerning our sonic choices is based on the use of the Monster Cable I400 interconnect. Mine sound fuzzy, phasey, muddy, bloated and totally limited in frequency extension - within my BEDROOM system - while you consider these crappy cables a MAIN ingredient to achieving a "high-resolution" system.

Teresa, you're wayyyyy out of your league!

TBone

Oops I missed the Rega RB300 turntable. It didn't click for some reason, maybe because you called it a TT and, posted on February 18, 2009 at 04:31:18
Teresa
 didn't make the connection. For that I am sorry.

You seem to be confusing build quality with high resolution. You do have more expensive equipment than I do and I am sure you are aware I like my $450 Yamaha SACD player much better than my $1,699 tubed Xindak SCD-2 SACD player. So money and performance are not constants.

There are two things you are confusing built quality and high resolution. No matter how well CD is built it can never be high resolution because it is stuck at it's 44.1kHz sampling rate, however very inexpensive high resolution can sound terrible. It is possible to make poor sounding high resolution, there was no doubt it is high resolution as you could clearly hear it but it is poor sounding high resolution. I have experienced this first hand with a poor sounding Pioneer Universal player and certain poorly mastered SACDs. On the other hand it is not possible to magically change low resolution into high resolution no matter how great the build quality. This is something a lot of people don't understand "high resolution" is a starting point not a guarantee of excellent sound quality.

Also many listeners prefer good sounding low resolution over poor sounding high resolution. However I reject both as I find both unlistenable.

LPs can be high resolution too like the Alpha Genesis 1000II Moving Coil cartridge I had on my old SOTA Comet turntable whose frequency response went to 75kHz. My current Goldring cartridge doesn't go much beyond 20kHz so in all honesty I cannot call it high resolution. My LPs still sound great on the Music Hall though, I guess I would call them medium resolution as my current cartridge has very little ultrasonic response.

Since your Energy's go to 35kHz and you said your Classe Pre and Power Amps also reproduce ultrasonics you should be ready for high resolution, so what did you do with the SACD player you said you once had in your video room?

The Linn Ikemi might beat my Yamaha playing CDs, but there is no way it hell it would beat it playing SACDs. Now if you had a Linn Universal that would be a different story, I have no interest at all in the Linn Ikemi because I have no interest at all in the CD format as I find it sonically unacceptable to me.

Oh and if you didn't already know I love the musicality, sound quality and synergy of my affordable high-end high resolution stereo system and I don't lust after other peoples equipment. The only thing I would conceivably change is getting a MC cartridge that has ultrasonic response to at least 40kHz as LPs frequency response extends to 35kHz and in the case of a few direct to discs 50kHz. Cartridges are getting so damned expensive though and they wear out!

BTW I don't a position fictional or otherwise and I was not looking to join a league.

Give me high resolution or remain silent,
Teresa

a few professional descriptions ..., posted on February 18, 2009 at 06:47:46
TBone
Audiophile

Posts: 2645
Joined: April 5, 2000
 >>The Linn Ikemi might beat my Yamaha playing CDs, but there is no way it hell it would beat it playing SACDs<<

The Ikemi is one of only a handfull of players (of which I have heard) that could be placed into my main system and impress on a purely musical basis. It has an inherited advantage over most digital products (any format) because it has a vanishingly low noise-floor, class leading transparency, superb dimensionality, natural tonality and true instrumental impact - all consistent - even during the most difficult peak passages (a rare occurance for any format).

It would blow away your Yamaha with relative ease ...

Do you think they'd ever say this concerning your Yamaha, in any mode ...

UHF Ikemi review ...

"It says a lot that the three of us combined wrote only a single word (the word was "delicious" -- and never mind the author). The Ikemi had done nothing less than erase the tiny little electronic artifacts that stand between the listener and the music. There was a magical presence to Gibson and her musicians that made us hold our collective breath. The song passed in a flash. "Oof!" said Albert, though not before the echo of the last piano note had died away from the distant walls of that recreated studio."

"I think it isn't really as good as the CD-12, but you can't prove it by looking at our notes. Like the CD-12, it gives you the impression that finally, after so many false hopes and broken promises, you are hearing everything that has been put on the record."

"There are other good, even excellent, players, but the Ikemi is one of those truly superb products that comes along only now and then".


Soundstage review ...

"But the treble is what I keep coming back to -- it’s so extended and liquid that you’ll feel gypped that this couldn’t have happened earlier in the development of digital sound."

Constantine Soo review ...

"The Ikemi was also highly affluent in the effects of drama. From its HDCD®-fortified heart, the Ikemi excelled at displaying contrasting and wholesome dynamics reminiscent of that from my former reference DAC, the Wadia 27, at the same time possessing a rare tonal clarity distinctly similar to that of the 47 Lab digital system."

"The Ikemi recreated piano sounded particularly massive and reverberant, trickling out notes in concurrent droplets of resolution. Maestro Pollini's poetic yet powerful reading was complimented by high quality recording and mastering, embedded with soft radiance that supported the mighty dynamics."

"Having said all of the above, I have saved Ikemi's forte for last. Amidst all the digital front ends that graced my system, the Ikemi produced a most dazzling soundstaging ... Depth of hall and studio, and specificity of instruments was, simply put, most expertly delineated."

"... once you experience the Ikemi's extended frequency response, resolute spectral definition, discrete dimensionality and the resultant musicality, you will not hesitate to spend the $3,595."

Art Dudley recent review of the Linn Majik (which replaced the Ikemi)...

"If I had to describe the performance of the Linn Majik in a very short space, I'd make the biggest deal about how clean it sounded—how open, pure, and unsmeared was its view of every note—while at the same time avoiding any suggestion of timbral flatness, lifelessness, or sterility. Recorded music had flesh and blood through the Majik; instrumental and vocal sounds had texture, presence, and all of the nearly indescribable cues that suggest differing levels of tension or stress in the playing or singing."

Teresa, pay special attention to this quote ...

"The most interesting comparison of all may have been between the Linn and the Linn: the Majik CD and the Unidisk SC. I admire the Unidisk's sound on regular CDs—and, of course, it performs brilliantly well on DSD and DVD-Audio material, which the Majik can't play at all. But the Majik sounded more substantial and more colorful on disc after disc; the sound of the Unidisk SC was slightly more wraithlike in comparison. Call it a choice between A+ "Red Book" performance on the one hand, and grade-A "Red Book" plus DSD and DVD-A on the other. It's a choice that I would find daunting."

OK, certainly I've heard a few SACD players (and CDP) produce superior sound, but like I said before, only a select few players managed that mountain! Therefore, yes, I can easily hear the superiority of SACD, but only if the associated hardware is up to the task.

TBone

Sorry I'm not buying it, I will stick with high resolution SACDs. You are free to do what you want, posted on February 18, 2009 at 21:46:28
Teresa
 and to believe you want. That final paragraph you highlighted in bold is the weirdest and saddest thing I have ever read about low resolution CD. I would NEVER trust that reviewer that said they would prefer slightly better CD performance and be willing to give up high resolution completely for it! Bizarre beyond belief.

You are free to listen to all the CDs you want to. I personally will never listen to a CD again as long as I am drawing breath, If by some chance I do someday have a Linn SACD player, I will be playing SACDs on it.

In closing NO CD player no matter how expensive can even come close to the resolution of an SACD player playing SACDs unless it is really poorly designed. And the Yamaha players are well designed and true bargains.

Give me high resolution or remain silent,
Teresa

well..., posted on February 18, 2009 at 22:28:43
TBone
Audiophile

Posts: 2645
Joined: April 5, 2000
 >>That final paragraph you highlighted in bold is the weirdest and saddest thing I have ever read about low resolution CD.<<

I understand your sadness.

TB1

Teresa, hearing equipment is not the same as living with it., posted on February 17, 2009 at 10:42:02
TommyTunes
Reviewer

Posts: 99
Joined: December 5, 2000
 You sound exactly like a friend of mine. I'll say the same thing to you, as I do to him. Hearing a piece of gear at an audio show or dealer demo is far different than having the item in your own system over an extend period of time. Unfamiliar environments or other components in the chain will skew your impression.

Teresa, your never ending crusade for SACD is commendable but unrealistic. It's a niche format and will remain one. If you are willing to only subject yourself to titles available on that format, go for it. However many of us enjoy more varied music, just because it's on SACD does not mean it the best version available. Compare the SACD version of the Allman Brothers Live at the Fillmore to the MFSL CD (or the Dennis Drake 1st issue US) and it become apparent that the SACD is not that good.

As a collector with 5K of LP's and 4K or CD's versus a mere 300+ SACD's. It becomes readily apparent how little is available on SACD. In the majority of comparisons, the LP will nudge out the CD. However compare a US Bell Sound stamper from the US London label LP's in the 60's to their some of their CD counter parts and it won't take "Golden Ears" to hear how much better the CD fares.

I find your rants about CD insulting, which is why you are constantly attacked. Just because you think they are inferior does not mean that the rest of us cannot hear.

Teresa you really need to give this a rest. After 9 years SACD is NOT become a standardized format for releasing music
I love the equipment I own, If I were rich I doubt I would change a thing,, posted on February 17, 2009 at 14:43:40
Teresa
 I would spend the extra money on SACDs and LPs.

I have never had any objection with anyone who has the ability to listen around CD's inherent problems but to pretend any 44,1kHz PCM is anything but low resolution is lubricious. It doesn't matter whither it is from an CD, 44.1kHz computer music files, an SACD from a 44.1kHz master, or an LP from a 44.1kHz master.

I don't think you realize how silly you look defending the undefendable CD format.

I personally would never use Rock music to judge the sound quality of any format. However with your Allman Brothers Live at the Fillmore example the SACD was likely carelessly remastered like a lot of Universals SACDs, the MFSL CD was given TLC, if the MFSL ever releases it on SACD you will see what I mean, the SACD will blow away their previous CD version. The MFSL CD version is more pleasing to your ears but it is still low resolution.

High resolution and enjoyable sound are NOT the same thing. High resolution can be made to sound unbearable and low resolution can be make listenable. One might prefer a listenable low resolution recording over a poorly made high resolution recording, but neither of these are an ideal solution, as both high resolution and enjoyable sound should be the goal.


Give me high resolution or remain silent,
Teresa

My point is YOU keep say that you've heard ......., posted on February 18, 2009 at 05:17:24
TommyTunes
Reviewer

Posts: 99
Joined: December 5, 2000
 "I personally would never use Rock music to judge the sound quality of any format"

Why, know snob appeal? Well recorded Rock music is just as valid as Classical, Jazz or any other music form.

"I have never had any objection with anyone who has the ability to listen around CD's inherent problems"

You do, just the way you phase it implies that the person has lower standards than yourself.

Personally I think your zeal overshadows your judgment.

Or

You just need you med’s upped.
Your interpretation appears more a reflection of your own judgements than what was written by Fremer., posted on February 2, 2009 at 13:02:59
bjh
Audiophile

Posts: 11876
Location: Toronto, Canada
Joined: November 22, 2003
 If he disliked CDs almost as much as you then we would expect exceedingly disparaging remarks about the sound when playing CDs.

That was not the case, in fact it would appears he found the sound (when playing) CDs and SACDs to be similar, e.g. "Playing CDs or SACD, the SA-11S2 produced consistently warm, reasonably detailed sound." He went on to suggest other aspects of the sonic presentation (when playing) CDs and SACDs were also similar, e.g. spatial characteristics, somewhat soft bass, etc. He did give the nod to SACD replay, e.g. "The Marantz delivered inviting sound, especially from SACDs", but that is hardly a strong knock against CD replay.

It seems your preconceptions prevented you from comprehending what was clearly written. Of course you wouldn't be the first to be blind-sided by personal bias. That said the power of biases do tend to diminish significantly when we become conscious of their presence, essentially that allows one to check oneself, to be on guard against rash judgments, etc. I would strongly suggest you obtain another copy of the review. A careful re-reading juxtaposed against your posed comments should provide an eye-opening experience.


Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!

That is why I tried to find my copy of Stereophile but it was already in the recycle bin., posted on February 2, 2009 at 13:19:04
Teresa
 I was going to reread it before I posted to refresh my memory.

Yes, I am very biased against both CDs and 44.1kHz PCM including downloads because I hate the way they sound.

The main thing I wanted to say is I don't remember Michael Fremer saying anything negative about SACD as I would have remembered that. Comments about CDs don't interest me in the least that is why I was going to reread.

I was very disappointed earlier today to learn Michael Fremer actually listens to CDs. When did this start? I've been following Michael Fremer for decades and I knew about the CD-R experiments but never read anything positive about CD from him so I must have missed it. He was one of my heros who dared to speak out against the problems with CDs and how unmusical they are. Another hero falls.

Oh well.


Give me high resolution or remain silent,
Teresa

"if a reviewer is at it for a long time and continually provides unreliable sonic impressions,, posted on February 2, 2009 at 20:04:12
Wendell Narrod
Audiophile

Posts: 7992
Location: Louisville, KY
Joined: June 2, 2000
 he's not likely to be taken seriously by anyone.....

Take heed Teresa. Many of us simply don't take you seriously. If you described yourself as and audiophile or enthusiast that would be one thing but you call yourself a reviewer. You're not there yet, in my opinion.


-Wendell

Especially after the most recent PF article, posted on February 10, 2009 at 09:27:57
Kristian
Audiophile

Posts: 573
Joined: September 24, 2008
 copied below. At least I think it's the same person, but whomever wrote that is completely out of touch with what's been happening in the home entertainment world over the last 15 years, and more specifically, what's been happening with music and how it's listened to in the last 5 years. SACD is completely dead. Dead, dead, dead. Never to be revived, ever. Gone forever.

I especially like the idea that it's assumed people still have home stereos! And that CD makers are going to subsidize new equipment for people....

This article in particular made me aware that the writer's biases render her an unreliable commentator.

Not only am I 100% serious! We intend to succeed, and I guess without your help., posted on February 12, 2009 at 20:01:04
Teresa
 All CDs as a matter of course must have an SACD layer, to not do so is discriminating not only against multichannel listeners and but any listener who wants decent sound at home.

Sony screwed-up, it is now time for us to take action, and take it before it is too late!


Give me high resolution or remain silent,
Teresa

My sonic impressions are not only reliable but repeatable and 100% totally honest., posted on February 2, 2009 at 21:42:26
Teresa
 You would have better luck coming down reviewers willing to compromise for the sake of popularity by not being too harsh on the CD format. Every time a reviewer does this he or she looses "face" in my book and I take their reviews with a grain of salt.

I stand on the side of truth and honesty. I guess you don't like my books either or any of my web sites or blogs?

I am perhaps the most outspoken reviewer in regards to the damage that 44.1kHz and CD has done to our musical heritage between the 1980's to the mid 1990's. There is a very good reason engineers record with high resolution PCM, DSD or DXD. There is a very good reason SACDs and 24 Bit 96kHz downloads exists. Thank about it before you attack one of the last honest reviewers in our hobby.

Your attack was uncalled for! I been there for over two decades, in the late 1980's I even had my own print magazine, which was very anti-CD. It was called the "Audio Iconoclast".

Think before you type next time.


Give me high resolution or remain silent,
Teresa

Fremer likes Mono too, can you believe how many people have bad ears/taste except you? (nt), posted on February 3, 2009 at 09:15:32
jdaniel@jps.net
Audiophile

Posts: 4456
Location: No. California
Joined: December 16, 2003
 .

No, no, no! Anyone who listens to mono CAN'T be a music lover., posted on February 3, 2009 at 09:49:25
Wendell Narrod
Audiophile

Posts: 7992
Location: Louisville, KY
Joined: June 2, 2000
 They are just mono and, probably, CD apologists. Who are we to argue? She is 100% perfect in her assessments. First time I've ever heard someone claim that level of accuity but, who am I to question? :-)

-Wendell

"I take their reviews with a grain of salt. ", posted on February 3, 2009 at 06:00:10
Wendell Narrod
Audiophile

Posts: 7992
Location: Louisville, KY
Joined: June 2, 2000
 One needs stock in a salt mine to take your reviews and opinions seriously.

-Wendell

Teresa, stop pretending your knowledge of vinyl is extensive enough ..., posted on January 31, 2009 at 10:44:08
TBone
Audiophile

Posts: 2645
Joined: April 5, 2000
 to debate with Fremer.

>>The only disagreement I've had with Michael Fremer as of late is the coping of LPs to CD-Rs, he believes that one can capture the sonic signature of a phono cartridge even with the loss in resolution. I have heard John Elison CD-Rs made from Reference Recordings LPs and they are not as good as LPs, however I do find LPs to 24 Bit 96kHz DVD-R's to come pretty close<<

If recorded well, and played back on a decent CDP, indeed its very easy to hear the sonic signiture of carts, phono-stages and turntables.

In fact, LPCDR can be used as an archiving tool to demonstrate these differences to an audience without much compromise. As an example, Marty DeWulfe(Bound for Sound) recently used LPCDR to demonstrate the differences between 4 relatively expensive carts, a Dyna DVX2mKII, Transfiguration Phoenix, Clearaudio Concerto and a Shelter 7000. The individual characteristics of these 4 carts were EASILY heard using LPCDR.

And this should get your attention, when played back on my Ikemi, the best cuts certainly sounded far superior to any budget turntable I've heard, including your Music Hall.

>>3) LP playback adds a degree of warmth that is missing from CD.<<

When someone describes vinyl as "warm" (or the alternative, CD as cold) I instantly know they're overall experience with analog (and digital) is very limited.

TB1
It was John Elison CD-Rs played on Tubesforever system., posted on January 31, 2009 at 15:36:51
Teresa
 To further clarify analog tape is "warmer" but LP is definitely warmer than CD on any turntable on anyones system I've ever heard by a long shot! And MC cartridges are generally "warmer" than MM.

I once owned a SOTA Comet with the Alpha Genesis 1000II moving coil cartridge!

I have never heard a "warm" CD not even from a $5,000 CD player, never!

Most SACDs I find warm, most Reel to Reels I find warm, most cassettes I find warm and yes the best LPs I find warm, especially RCA Living Stereo, Mercury Living Presence and Deccas!

Anyone who cannot hear the warm sound of Analog and high resolution digital has not tried the best recordings yet.

A 24 Bit 96kHz DVD-R will give you a much more accurate presentation of what is on the vinyl, give it a try.

Give me high resolution or remain silent,
Teresa

I love reading your posts Teresa, a reviewer with preconceived opinions on everything, posted on February 2, 2009 at 11:43:15
TommyTunes
 My first question is how you define warm? Based on your post it seems that it's automatically warm if it's either analog or hirez. I heard my cartridges that sound harsh and etched while the Marantz in quest is warm even on CD in comparison.

Unlike you, Fremer does not hate CD’s he just prefers vinyl to CD. He has reviewed many players and cd's during his career. I even found an Absolute Sound review where the thought the Beatles White Album on CD was the best sounding version.

How do I put this nicely, you have a mediocre system and you make way too many generalizations on every format.
"warm" is on the warm side of neutral, sort of a nice cozy feeling., posted on February 2, 2009 at 12:57:58
Teresa
 "cold" is on the cold side of neutral, sort of like biting cold air in the wintertime.

Money isn't everything, I am a thrifty shopper and I am willing to spend lots of time deciding what components, speakers, etc. I like best that I actually can afford to buy.

Generalizations are mandatory when one does not have unlimited income!

Also in regards to CDs I have owned probably over 400 but never more than 100 at a time. I think that is a large enough sample to make generalizations especially since I have owned CDs from all the audiophile labels, major labels, boutique labels and all types Gold CDs, XRCDs, etc. BTW they are not all terrible, they actually range from terrible to fair.

Not all SACDs are fantastic and I always let you folks know when I find a dog.

Michael Fremer liking CDs, I am shocked and disappointed in the extreme!


Give me high resolution or remain silent,
Teresa

"warm" is on the warm side of neutral, sort of a nice cozy feeling.", posted on February 2, 2009 at 19:50:39
Wendell Narrod
Audiophile

Posts: 7992
Location: Louisville, KY
Joined: June 2, 2000
 "I am enthusiastic about the sound of that Cary player, I own a good CD player, I bought a Sooloos system and I have a lot of CDs.....that I actually listen to." Michael Fremer

Teresa, Michael is a real reviewer with extensive experience with all levels of software and hardware. Even then, people disagree with him because, in the end, we are dealing with opinions and preferences. He has
credibility. You need to listen and understand that you are not the final arbiter of what's good and, most importantly, learn to write. You are much too strident and take yourself much too seriously AND can't handle criticism. You are never going to be taken seriously until you make some changes.

-Wendell

Michael Fremer has lost "face" with me by his admission of listening to CDs!, posted on February 2, 2009 at 21:53:50
Teresa
 I am shocked and appalled! After that admission I can no longer take anything he says seriously. I am sorry anyone willing to subject themselves to CDs and/or 44.1kHz PCM is not someone whom I can trust.

Once again I will ask why are you attacking one of the last honest and truthful reviewers? Yes I can take criticism but I will not change into something I know is wrong just to make other people feel good about themselves.

I am the final arbiter of what's good in my home and it is reflected in my articles as it should be. Other people may have other experiences but that will not change mine. Mine are what they are and that is how it should be.

And yes I take myself very seriously that is why I feel my writings and messages are of the utmost importance. If I believed otherwise I would not be a writer.


Give me high resolution or remain silent,
Teresa

RE: Michael Fremer has lost "face" with me by his admission of listening to CDs!, posted on February 11, 2009 at 10:50:17
Know_Talent
Audiophile

Posts: 158
Location: Midwest USA
Joined: April 25, 2008
 a writer???

you come off more as an emotionally unstable reactionary trying to push your opinions and perceptions as universal "fact"

Just because you chose to wear rose tinted glasses does not mean the sky is pink.

I am sorry you find CD acceptable, and question any writer who does not., posted on February 12, 2009 at 20:09:37
Teresa
 When we are finally able to more the rest of the world into high resolution, I will bet my bottom dollar that you CD apologists will be playing the SACD layer of your SACDs not the low resolution CD layer on your universal players. I guess you will not respect us until we succeed.


Give me high resolution or remain silent,
Teresa

whatever (nt), posted on February 13, 2009 at 05:51:33
Know_Talent
Audiophile

Posts: 158
Location: Midwest USA
Joined: April 25, 2008
 nt

Teresa is no reactionary., posted on February 12, 2009 at 18:15:33
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 3065
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
Contributor
  Since: February 24, 2009
 Teresa is advocating overthrow of established technology and replacing it with something newer. This makes her a progressive or possibly a revolutionary. In no way is she reactionary or conservative.

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

RE: Michael Fremer has lost "face" with me by his admission of listening to CDs!, posted on February 10, 2009 at 14:21:36
Kristian
Audiophile

Posts: 573
Joined: September 24, 2008
 Teresa says: "I am sorry anyone willing to subject themselves to CDs and/or 44.1kHz PCM is not someone whom I can trust."

This is the single goofiest thing I've read in ages. Ages. Goofy. Daft.

(Mother) Teresa piously and indignantly asserts: "Once again I will ask why are you attacking one of the last honest and truthful reviewers?"

Good grief, you may feel you're honest as in you speak *your* truth, but for the love of God, don't confuse that with objectivity. You're hopelessly subjective and seemingly incapable of an objective viewpoint when it comes to sources.

"And yes I take myself very seriously that is why I feel my writings and messages are of the utmost importance. If I believed otherwise I would not be a writer"

No small ego, that; maybe even borderline delusional. I'd recommend stopping writing as long as you take yourself so seriously. Good writers are by nature capable of introspection, and thereby able to laugh at themselves.

What is wrong with not trusting anyone who willing subjects themselves to CDs and/or 44.1kHz PCM?, posted on February 10, 2009 at 23:12:45
Teresa
 I choose to enjoy the music I love with listenable sound and thus I cannot trust any reviewer whose standards for sound quality are so low that they admit to actually listening to CDs or 44.1kHz low resolution digital. This is someone who's opinions I can not trust in reviews of SACD software or sound equipment.

There is nothing whatsoever "goofy" as you claim, it is all about trust.

I'm at a point in my life where are no longer tolerate CD apologists or pro-CD activists. They have no say whatsoever in my life.


Give me high resolution or remain silent,
Teresa

Teresa, prepared to be shocked, posted on February 3, 2009 at 07:47:32
TommyTunes
Reviewer

Posts: 99
Joined: December 5, 2000
 Even Keith O Johnson one of the most respected analog recording engineers does know find fault in 44.1 but rather in the equipment employed to play the CD's back.

Teresa you are not a reviewer, you are a commentator. The Rush Limbaugh of HiRez. You are commenting on this Marantz thread, I ask have you heard the SA11S2, maybe before prejudging something you might actually want to hear it? I know this sounds stupid.

You make statements like MC Cartridges are on the warmer side of MM. I’ve never heard such a dumb remark in my life. As a person who has own at least 20 cartridges over the last 25 years I can tell you from experience that they fall all over the place. From warm MM’s to cold and sterile MC and visa versa.
"If I believed otherwise I would not be a writer. ", posted on February 3, 2009 at 06:01:27
Wendell Narrod
Audiophile

Posts: 7992
Location: Louisville, KY
Joined: June 2, 2000
 In my opinion, you're not.


-Wendell

generalizions based on limited experience ..., posted on February 1, 2009 at 13:01:34
TBone
Audiophile

Posts: 2645
Joined: April 5, 2000
 are rarely correct ...

>>And MC cartridges are generally "warmer" than MM.<<

Tonal balance characteristics tend to be far more related to the family of cartridge, rather than the type of cartridge. A few examples: few would label AT carts, either MM or MC, as warm'sh. Lyra's are typically lean, Grados typically warm, etc etc.

TB1

RE: I read Michael Fremer's Review of Marantz SA-11S2 in Stereophile as well, posted on January 30, 2009 at 02:46:33
Dr.Phil
Audiophile

Posts: 195
Location: Virginia
Joined: May 5, 2008
 I find digtal enjoyable and I owned many LP's over the years each has it good and perhaps bad points, I enjoy both...some well remastered cd's beat LP's hands down.

I don't buy into either extremist camp on either format. Some go to the point even when they hear a good LP or CD they find the fault...me I enjoy the music.

Life is to short. Go to live music...either format is a cardboard copy.


PJB

Not all LPs are good, IMHO only about 1% of LPs are great., posted on January 30, 2009 at 16:48:15
Teresa
 But that is better than CDs track record, as IMHO. Many of us find CD unlistenable and if there is indeed a few CDs which sound better than the LP counterpart, then I would say that poorly made LP would be unlistenable as well.

So far SACDs track record has been great, about 30% of the SACDs I've tried have been great, another 67% have been excellent and only about 3% have been poor. I sell the poor sounding SACDs, as well as SACDs in which I don't like the music or performance.

I like live music as well, and do find with the right recordings of high enough resolution, my stereo system can get damn close.

I enjoy music immensely, that is why I do not listen to CDs!


Give me high resolution or remain silent,
Teresa

RE: Not all LPs are good, IMHO only about 1% of LPs are great., posted on January 30, 2009 at 16:51:45
Dr.Phil
Audiophile

Posts: 195
Location: Virginia
Joined: May 5, 2008
 Can not change a mind...never try to but I would disagree with your points on both LP's and CD's. The era of the mastering and care taken in the end gives you the results that you listen to.

To each his own though. I am listen to a cd as I write and it is just superb sounding.


PJB

RE: Michael Fremer Review of Marantz SA-11S2 was disappointing, posted on January 26, 2009 at 10:01:22
Greg Gale
Audiophile

Posts: 140
Joined: May 19, 2001
 Thanks for the follow up. My problem is my dealer carries Marantz but not the top end models and before I make a decision I would need to hear it in my system. I will be able to bring home the Ayre C5xe and the Esoteric X-05 and compare those two players to my Marantz SA-14 which should be and interesting comparison.

Marantz and Esoteric... very different..., posted on January 27, 2009 at 09:21:32
QuadESL63
Audiophile

Posts: 402
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Joined: December 8, 2005
 Again, not familiar with the Ayre but I have demo'ed the Esoteric universal (DV-50) and a couple of their CD/SACD players in-store before. They are pretty much at the opposite sides of the 'ying and yang' IMHO. Marantz players emphasis on smooth, almost analog like sound; Esoteric is on details, lots or details and a 'crisp' sound. Just my 2 cents and since I didn't have the Esoteric's for a home demo they might sound different but I don't expect a big differences. So, it really depends on your preferences and the rest of your system...

RE: Marantz and Esoteric... very different..., posted on February 3, 2009 at 08:36:51
bjh
Audiophile

Posts: 11876
Location: Toronto, Canada
Joined: November 22, 2003
 "Esoteric is on details, lots or details and a 'crisp' sound."

That's what I expected before I first heard (at an audio get-together) a Esoteric player, the X-03, just a shot time ago. The X-03 proved to be an obviously topnotch performer, but what surprised me was that the X-03 definitely does have a certain pervasive warmth. That aspect of the X-03's performance was rather obvious (at least to me), noticeable even without comparison to another player.

To be honest Fremer's review of the Marantz put me in mind of the X-03, I got the impression that the SA-11S2 v. X-03 might will well be one of those 80% for 1/2 the price type scenarios.

OH, by way of disclosure, all music played at the audio get-together to listen to the X-03 was via Redbook CDs, no one brought SACDs!

One last thing, G-25U external master clock was also on hand that evening. While reaction was mixed I personally preferred the X-03 by itself feeling that usage of the G-25U had a certain "dulling" effect.






Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!

RE: Marantz and Esoteric... very different..., posted on January 27, 2009 at 18:32:04
Greg Gale
Audiophile

Posts: 140
Joined: May 19, 2001
 I will ultimately try out the Ayre C5Xe and the Esoteric but my understanding is there is a revision to Ayre which will now be called C-5xe MP which stands for minimum phase filter so I need to make sure I hear the new one up against the Esoteric.

RE: Michael Fremer Review of Marantz SA-11S2 was disappointing, posted on January 26, 2009 at 09:20:45
ramsac
Audiophile

Posts: 49
Joined: February 5, 2006
 Some of Michael Fremer's comments on the Cary can be attributed to the Yamaha CD-S2000.

RE: Michael Fremer Review of Marantz SA-11S2 was disappointing, posted on January 26, 2009 at 09:04:00
Vahe240D
 I wonder if anyone has compared the Marantz SA-11S2 to Esoteric SA-10, both are CD/SACD stereo and about the same price.

Vahe

RE: Michael Fremer Review of Marantz SA-11S2 was disappointing, posted on January 26, 2009 at 05:43:28
mcondo
Audiophile

Posts: 533
Joined: May 12, 2002
 I read it as a simple "what do you like" comparison. Warmth and musicality vs. Resolution and dynamics... and the CARY is twice the price! I'll bet the SA11-S2 gets a Class A recomendation.

I own one, posted on January 25, 2009 at 23:06:21
Amphissa
Audiophile

Posts: 958
Location: Zardoz
Joined: March 9, 2004
IMO, you cannot get a better SACD player for the money than this one. I have never felt the sound stage was attenuated, have not felt I was missing any detail, and also RBCD sounds remarkably good. So, yeah, maybe for substantial thousands of dollars more, one could do better. But no other SACD player that I've heard in its price range can touch it.
"Life without music is a mistake" (Nietzsche)

RE: Michael Fremer Review of Marantz SA-11S2 was disappointing, posted on January 25, 2009 at 17:21:30
krisjan
Audiophile

Posts: 309
Joined: May 6, 2001
 I replaced a Cary 306 with the SA-11S2. Both of these players make great music but I liked the naturalness of the Marantz over the Cary. String timbres seemed just a tad more natural on the SA-11S2. Consdiering the price difference, the Marantz is a no brainer.

RE: Michael Fremer Review of Marantz SA-11S2 was disappointing, posted on January 25, 2009 at 16:54:18
TommyTunes
 I own it and also have a Sony 5400. The review is somewhat accurate. The Marantz is a more analog sounding player. Detail is very good but not up to the level of the $8k Players. Remember he is comparing it to the $8K Cary. I'm very happy with it (I've owned it since it was released), abd built quality is top notch. Remember this is the same mag that put the Marantz 8001 in class A. I also owned one and found it to be average at best.
Mike also liked the recent 'The Band" capitol LP pressing in the same issue and it sounds below average.
In other words listen for yourself.

Marantz SA-11S2 v Sony SCDXA5400, posted on January 26, 2009 at 01:54:55
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 4115
Joined: June 1, 2002
 How do the two compare; I am thinking of the 5400ES?

RE: Marantz SA-11S2 v Sony SCDXA5400, posted on April 4, 2009 at 14:20:00
Doctor Audio
 The Sa11S2 has the world class SA7S1 transport & much the same sound
Whereas the Scd-XA5400 es is a GREAT Value it in no way comes close to the true Audiophile detail of the SA11S2
RE: Marantz SA-11S2 v Sony SCDXA5400, posted on January 26, 2009 at 05:51:39
TommyTunes
 The SCD-XA5400 is a steal. It very detailed and open sounding. Very netural with a tilt to the cooler side. Build quality is definitely on the cheap mass market side. Both players offer bang for the buck BUT they are yin and yang.

It's important to match the attributes to the player to the system. I have them in two very different sounding systems.

Go demo the Ayre, Marantz and Cary..., posted on January 25, 2009 at 13:53:45
QuadESL63
Audiophile

Posts: 402
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Joined: December 8, 2005
 ... and forget what Michael Fremer said about any of these :)

I had a SA-14 as well and my SA-7S1 is definitely a step up. I like the Cary 306 (not the latest "Pro" one) and I almost bought one. Let just say I don't miss the Cary now that I have my SA-7S1. Never have a chance to listen to the Ayre so no comment... it does have a very good reputation.

RE: Michael Fremer Review of Marantz SA-11S2 was disappointing, posted on January 25, 2009 at 07:11:59
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 4115
Joined: June 1, 2002
 If they haven't changed their analog stage topography, the Marantz sonic signature is that of the Elna Silmic coupling caps they use.

This is why I don't touch Marantzs.

Several points, posted on January 25, 2009 at 07:42:23
Panelhead
Audiophile

Posts: 434
Location: Houston
Joined: September 26, 2000
 This is why I do not put any faith in magazine reviews. I have seen Fremer hype average at best components. Usually, the smaller the manufacturer and more expensive the player, the better it sounds.
The SA-7 and SA-11S2 can be played back DC coupled. There is a front panel section to bypass the output coupling caps. Also available from the remote. It fact it is default setting. So there are no output coupling caps in the path unless selected.
The only comparison I have heard was in the Soudings room at RMAF. They had the SA-7 and a Memory player both connected and could do a direct comparison. I was shocked to hear the Memory player easily best the SA-7.
I was really impressed that the MP sounded so much clearer and more pristine than the 7K Marantz. But then I asked Rod about how many hours the two players had. The answer was MP 1000's and Marantz was straight out of the box to the show. So on first day, not many and second day maybe 20. I do not know if the gap between them would narrow with more burn it. Three months later I went into Soundings shop and heard the same setup, but just the Marantz and it was incredibly good.
My advise, find a local dealer, go listen. See if they will let you take one home. So buy a used one. The prices have fallen. Maybe Fremer's review will convince someone who owns one to dump theirs.
I doubt if there is a better player available for less than twice the money of the SA-11S2 new. Used at 2K or so, it looks like a no brainer to me.


George

RE: Several points, posted on January 28, 2009 at 21:27:31
musicalsound
Audiophile

Posts: 49
Joined: January 24, 2008
 Wondering if you remember the filter setting the SA-7S1 was on during the comparison. I find that for Redbook, the filters does make a lot of different. After a couple of months of owership, I prefer filter 3 over filter 1. The background seems darker with more detail, focus and easier to listen to for a long period of time.

----------------------------------
Marantz SA-7S1 -> Pathos Logos -> Martin Logan Vantage

RE: Several points, posted on February 2, 2009 at 12:10:29
Dr.Phil
Audiophile

Posts: 195
Location: Virginia
Joined: May 5, 2008
 Agree about filter 3....but fix your room and filter one is very, very good. I like using the Noise Shaper also on some discs.
PJB

RE: Several points, posted on February 2, 2009 at 21:55:40
musicalsound
Audiophile

Posts: 49
Joined: January 24, 2008
 Yes. I am now thinking that if the recording of good quality (diana krall, holly cole, etc) then filter one is definitely very good. Filter 2 and 3 can help smooth out the edge on recording with less fidelity and make them more listenable and sound good.

----------------------------------
Marantz SA-7S1 -> Pathos Logos -> Martin Logan Vantage

RE: Several points, posted on January 25, 2009 at 10:46:51
jkm
Audiophile

Posts: 526
Joined: July 20, 2001
 Excuse my ignorance, but which button on the remote is the one you speak of here:

"There is a front panel section to bypass the output coupling caps. Also available from the remote."

Are you talking about the Digital Out Off button?

RE: Several points, posted on January 28, 2009 at 07:31:49
mtodde
Audiophile

Posts: 122
Location: Atlanta
Joined: January 25, 2005
 This is also available on the SA-11S1. I have the S1 & have heard the S2 several times. Even the S1 is better than what Fremer says about the S2.

On the remote it is DC Filter, posted on January 25, 2009 at 12:36:57
Panelhead
Audiophile

Posts: 434
Location: Houston
Joined: September 26, 2000
 Only works for CD. You have to turn it on.

RE: On the remote it is DC Filter, posted on January 25, 2009 at 13:49:01
jkm
Audiophile

Posts: 526
Joined: July 20, 2001
 OK, so when would I use it and when would I turn it off?

Thanks!

Never turned it on yet., posted on January 25, 2009 at 19:53:55
Panelhead
Audiophile

Posts: 434
Location: Houston
Joined: September 26, 2000
 Having the option is fine. But I prefer not having any caps in the signal path if possible.
I have not looked inside to see the details. But may be done with transistors. The ones used for muting could be papalleled across the coupling caps. They have fairly low on resistance.
Unless you have speakers that cannot deal with a little offset, there is no reason to use them here. I used amps with 100 mV of dc output for a while with 16 ohm Lowthers. I expected it to fry the voice coils, but could not tell it effected the sound or driver life.
Guess I need to check and see how much dc a SA-11S2 outputs with the dc filter off.

George

RE: Never turned it on yet., posted on February 22, 2009 at 13:28:04
HiFiNutNut
Audiophile

Posts: 47
Location: Australia
Joined: October 27, 2006
 Somebody above said that the Marantz has an option to bypass the output decoupling capacitor. That is not true. The DC option does not refer to the decoupling capacitor. It refers to Direct Current protection option probably at the input. I have the schematic of the SA11S1. The output decoupling capacitors are hard wired and can not be bypassed.

I agree with another post that the Marnantz house sound (analogue like sound, warmth, bigger soundstage, less details, etc) is due to the use of the "audiophile" Elna Silmic capacitors for output decoupling and in the power supply for the analogue section. These capacitors are strongly coloured.

I replaced all those capacitors with more accurate sounding Rubycon ZL capactors and the Marantz house sound was gone. My SA11S1 became more transparent and detailed.

Whenever I re-used those Elna Silmic capacitors in my other circuits I found I turned them into "Marantz" equipments. So despite of being expensive "audiophile" capacitors, I sold them all at $2 each to a guy who loves this type of sound.



Regards,
Bill

Page processed in 0.911 seconds.

[ Top Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2009, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ] [ Go Green ] [ Take5 ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]