 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
Last week I received one of these very pretty SACD players to investigate it's upgrade potential, and before doing any internal surgery, I was very curious to hear how it sounds stock.But first a few comments on it's operation. It's transport is unusual - if you put in a new disc it will not directly accept a "Play" command but spins the disc up (twice) to seemingly decide what it is and how to handle it. Only then will it accept a track choice or a "Play" command. And through this process it makes quite a lot of mechical noise - much more than any player that has the transport inside the cabinet. But it sure is pretty...
After more than 48 hours of warm up, it was compared to a stock Marantz SA-14, a stock SCD-777ES and a stock (european) XB940. The expected Philips 963 didn't arrive in time - but will be compared as soon as it does.
The test system comprised: Vacuum State RTP3C preamp & PP-2CS poweramps, Ted Jordan based speakers and Vacuum State silver foil I/C & spk cables.
The test track was #5 off the Channel Classics CCS SA 16501 Hybrid of Peter Wispelwey playing Tchaikovsky/Saint-Saens/Bruch. Playing volume was checked for all players and reset to 90dB "C" weighted at the first (loud) chord on track #1 of this disc. Therefore most of the test track was below 80dB. Only the SACD layer was used.
All the players tested are STOCK, either not (yet) upgraded, or on the SONY's the output taken from the standard non-upgraded outputs:
SONY X940 (stock outputs) : "Electronic" sounding, good room space on simple sections but rapidly getting confused on more complex passages. Overall a "lightweight" sound. Listener interest not kept at all. Not in the same class as the other three units, and hence not included in the following comparisons.
Marantz SA-14 (stock): Warmer sounding (to the point of sounding 'thick") than the Shanling or SCD-777ES. More bass weight, perhaps too much compared to what I would expect to hear in concert from a similar sized orchestra. It did give a very good tonal distiction between the 'left & right' bow strokes of the cello from it's entrance at 0.55 seconds. (Don't know the correct musical terms...) But as more & more of the orchestra joined in it became messy and lost the clarity/tonality it had when the music was less complex.
SCD-777ES (stock outputs): Very good room space with a very clear & dynamic presentation - instruments soared. Overall "weight" seemed correct. You could hear very clearly the fact that he was making 'forward & back' bow strokes on the cello - but it didn't show the *tonal* difference of this change of bow direction as well as the SA-14. A strange effect - it was like you could sense the change of hand direction better than the change in tonality. And it kept my interest.
Shanling SCD-T200 - from the direct outputs ie none of it's tubes in circuit:
Less obvious room space than the 777ES but more than the SA-14. Richer sounding than the 777ES but not so much as the SA-14. Very good dynamics, the music blooms and brings the tonal qualities of the cello, dragging me back to the music even if taking notes. Overall very natural, and to date, by a small amount, the best sounding 'stock' SACD player I have had here - although the 777ES has it's strengths as well. A very nice surprise!
Shanling SCD-T200 - from the tube outputs:
Softer, but not in a nice way. Yukky even. Much less definition than from the direct outputs, and it becomes rapidly much 'messier' on complex music. Room space indistinct. Not involving. Clearly worst of the four choices, and I'd take a stock 940 over this, if I had to make such a choice.
------------------------
IMO, the addition of the tubes in to the signal path turns a surprisingly good sounding player into a joke - confirming my original opinion (after having seen the schematics) that the tubes are there only for cosmetic/sales reasons. They are wired in AFTER the normal (and quite well done) DAC/opamp section, so are an affront to the KISS princlple - and can only add distortions with zero benefit. As a manufacturer of tube based equipment for over 20 years, I can say with conviction that tubes should not be used this way!
------------------------I hope I can keep my hands away from the tools long enough to compare the stock Shanling to the soon arriving Philips 963...
Allen
Follow Ups:
You have spell out what I have heard and worried about this player. IMO Tube output shouldn't be an add-on to the OP-AMP output. Please confirm your findings once you trace the circuitry.Alan
> You have spell out what I have heard and worried about this player. IMO Tube output shouldn't be an add-on to the OP-AMP output. Please confirm your findings once you trace the circuitry <I mapped out the tube area last night. It does follow the DAC/opamp circuits as shown by their schematic - and is a most horrible execution of a tube buffer. It uses a 6N3 tube with both sections paralleled (~OK) running at a high current of ~11mA per section (good) but with a cathode resistor of only 607 ohms (560 = 47) (very very low) hence giving only 13V at the cathode (really stupid)!
I will be making measurements today and expect a LOT of distortion from this stage - which I guess is what they wanted to give that fat "tube" sound... As everything is BEAUTIFULLY built and the non tube parts of the circuit done correctly - I can only assume this is done on purpose
It has 160V at the anodes so a technically better setup would be to have the cathode sitting up at half the supply voltage - for starters - but it would then sound cleaner...
The good news (from my point of view) is that there is lots of capacity in the tube powersupply to allow a total rebuild of the tube section to act as a tube only output - no opamps at all for CD and no opamps AND no DAC for SACD!
There will be pics (in time) on my site
Allen
Just out of curiosity, what tubes did you use? The stock tubes are total crap. Your description of the sound via tubes is a description of the sound of the chinese tubes. As an owner of the t-100, I can say quite confidently that if you haven't tried it with WE 396As you haven't given it a fair chance.
Jack
Jack,
> Just out of curiosity, what tubes did you use? The stock tubes are total crap. Your description of the sound via tubes is a description of the sound of the chinese tubes <I tested it stock - as I did all the other machines to have a level playing field. I agree the tubes maybe crap, but then why do they sell it with them? It's not a cheap device...and the promo I have seen says it does use 396's... But a Chinese made, Russki designed 6N3 is not a WE 396A!
> As an owner of the t-100, I can say quite confidently that if you haven't tried it with WE 396As you haven't given it a fair chance <
OK, wanna send me some? With them do you then prefer the tube output over the direct? All they can do - WE's or not - is add distortion...mostly (perhaps) pleasing 2nd harmonic...
I'm personally not interested in spending big bucks on NOS WE's to prop up a shockingly poor circuit design (IMO) that can only be INTENDED to add distortions that "tube-ups" the sound.
When we have our tube replacement modules - would you like to be a Beta tester?
Allen
> > > I agree the tubes maybe crap, but then why do they sell it with them? < < <
The same reason most tubed gear manufacturers do-price and availability-you even acknowledge it here:"I'm personally not interested in spending big bucks on NOS WE's"> > > With them do you then prefer the tube output over the direct? < < <
Yes. With the tube outputs, the T-100 is significantly better than the philips 1000(now doing video duty), sony XA7ES and my ML#39, in most areas.> > > All they can do - WE's or not - is add distortion < < <
All gear adds distortion.> > > would you like to be a Beta tester? < < <
I'm personally not interested in spending big bucks on after market mods on a nitch technology.Jack
PS. My shanling blew a channel, so while it was down, I replaced it with a Cary 308T.
I have had this unit working, eight hours a day, for one full month now, and I must say that it took much more than 48 hours before it sounded real good, as it is doing now. In fact, it sounds much better than its CD sibling!I am listening to it directly through the Shanling (tubed) power amps (no preamp in-between), and this set sounds very good and natural, besides being gorgeous. The remote control works on both the player, and the volume in the power amps, in steps of .5 dB.
Re noises from the mechanism, Iīve found that it only happens when the diskīs inner circle is somewhat bigger than standard, and then it is a bit loose-centered (while not easily noticeable by just looking at it). Same thing happened with the SCD-T100. And yes, it takes time before it decides that what is there is worth reading...
Please letīs know how you can upgrade it, as your opinion is highly esteemed.
Regards
BF
I have no argument on how it sounds...through the "Direct" outputs. The tube outputs are a travesty!Upgrade concept in my reply above - complete rewiring of the tube area!
Allen
Allen,
You pretty much nailed the sound of the Marantz SA-14 as I know it in the above: excellent warmth, bass extension and superb natural timbres but slightly lacking in resolution compared to the very best. The question in my mind is when to mod and when to match components, cables, etc.? The SA-14 sounds very good in my system - Denon AVR-4800 as preamp, Bryston 4B-SST, Paradigm Studio 100s and Servo 15. A very neutral, highly resolving system, in my opinion. I wouldn't want mods that reduced the warmth and thickness you describe. On the other hand, I guess that some mods could potentially increase resolution without affecting the basic character of the sound. But what would they be?
Jim,
> You pretty much nailed the sound of the Marantz SA-14 as I know it in the above: excellent warmth, bass extension and superb natural timbres but slightly lacking in resolution compared to the very best <Yes.
> I wouldn't want mods that reduced the warmth and thickness you describe <
Warmth - OK. Thickness - nein danke!
> On the other hand, I guess that some mods could potentially increase resolution without affecting the basic character of the sound. But what would they be? <
Get rid of the opamps is stage 1. A better clock is stage 2. Better digital area bypassing is stage 3.
Then listen a lot and think where to go next...
> The question in my mind is when to mod and when to match components, cables, etc.? <
I consider that "matching" components to trade brightness against warmth etc is a wrong concept and while maybe allowing cheaper devices to be tolerated - it's not the path towards an optimum solution. For example - if a speaker has a resonance at (say)16kHz - then fix it, or change to a better speaker - but please don't use a cable/amp/filter with a suckout at this brightness frequency!
Allen
"Get rid of the opamps is stage 1. A better clock is stage 2. Better digital area bypassing is stage 3."Allen, have you yet undertaken these mods with the SA-14? I thought the SA-14 had all these nifty HDAM doodads. Any specifics you're willing to share would be appreciated.
Stephen
Alan: That's pretty much what I have heard about the older T100 (HDCD player). The regular non-tube output was good and coloration was added by the tube output. I assume the T200 is similar, if not idential in its output stages. Two tubes for the alternate line out and the other two tubes for the Headphone out.
> I assume the T200 is similar, if not idential in its output stages. Two tubes for the alternate line out and the other two tubes for the Headphone out <Yes. I don't have the full schematic of the tube section only the solid state part. The bottom cover comes off tonight and then the circuit will be traced and then I'll know why it degrades the sound of the opamp circuits so much.
And I'll also know if I can rewire it to create a full (no opamp) tube output...
Allen
Hello Allen,
Thanks for the review. This past weekend I had an opportunity to hear the Shanling at the Lone Star Bottlehead get-together in San Antonio (http://www.wardsweb.org/LSB/). The Shanling is definitely eye-candy and drew significant attention even when off. While I personally would also rather have the 777ES, I can see why people would be drawn to the T200. In fact, it was actually a little better than I thought it would be. Mated with a DIY tubed pre-amp and solid state amp, it did amazingly well with Zander SACD of Mahler's 6th. Definitely not as "crisp" as a full solid state set-up, but it seemed to be much to the liking of the folks at the meet.Julian
looking forward to hear what you think of the 963 which is clearly in a different price category!
Regards
Amir
i hate gimmick marketing. i wonder how much the player would cost without the tubes and fancy cosmetics. you would think that it would only be a matter of time before word got out that the tubes were worthless, so why not just sell a good, solid SACD player to begin with, w/o the gimmicks and for less money? methinks they'd sell more units and make more money in the long run this way anyway.
nt
OK, this is great. A pure and simple stereo SACD player. Why do we not see more manufacturers making units like this?
I thought of this machine when reading Allen's review. While it is not as flashy as the other machine, IMO it looks much nicer. I wonder if the sound is as good? One would assume so, but you never know.
...and if it weighs anything like it's quoted 40lb shipping weight - and at the price - it could be a very interesting stereo unit wth no bells &whistles with potentially very good performance.Allen (VSEI)
for the honest and forthright eval. its always enlightening to hear a scientist such as yourself dissect the sound of components this way.
......regards.....tr
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
