Post by zoldar December 11, 2010 (21 of 96)
|
|
Disbeliever said:
The Sony XA5400ES is excellent with both CD & SACD and with mch sacd via HDMI.. I found the Sony XA5400ES to be superior to the more expensive overweight Marantz SA-7S1 which has received reviews that IMO are inaccurate for sound quality but mechanically excellent. If you can find one buy the Sony,mine has performed faultlessly for the past two years.For short cable runs there is no difference between balanced & unbalanced modesthe Sony has balanced outlets.
Thanx for the input! That would save me the upgrade to a balanced source. I do feel, however, that I am not using the Graaf's full potential since the design is fully balanced pre and power amp. I can actually see the tubes I am not using by conecting a Single ended source.
I do like the SA8003 a lot. It does seem at times to round of the highs a bit. I wonder if the Sony might have a bit more "sparkle" but without becomming too harch. Also the strong point of the marantz is its musicality. It conveys the emotion in the music very well indeed. I wonder if the Sony is cpaable of that as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I personally think the Marantz players suck. Very soft on the top end.
The 5400 is far better than the 11S2. More detail and better top end.
Marantz has a soft sound I don't care for.
|
|
|
Post by krisjan December 11, 2010 (23 of 96)
|
|
I beg to differ - the 11S2 in my system sounds like real instruments playing. No exaggerated "hi-fi" treble (which many audiophiles call "detail").
|
|
|
Post by zeus December 11, 2010 (24 of 96)
|
|
Disbeliever's whole purpose in life seems to gravitate around telling everyone ad nauseam how great his Sony XA5400ES is. At this level though it's more about listening preferences, system matching etc. The best you can hope for from reviews, users comments is general guidelines on player characteristics. At the end of the day you have to live with it.
|
|
|
Post by rammiepie December 11, 2010 (25 of 96)
|
|
Lee Scoggins said:
I personally think the Marantz players suck. Very soft on the top end.
The 5400 is far better than the 11S2. More detail and better top end.
Marantz has a soft sound I don't care for.
Absolutely NOT true. Zeus hit the nail on the head. The ancillary equipment is equally as important. It is a known fact that some components do not interact well with one another. With no more high end audio stores who used to lend their valuable customers equipment which they could audition in their homes, gone, it's a matter of taking one's chances by investing in higher end or for that matter ANY components and hoping for a match.
I will admit that though I have had NO mods done on the Marantz SA~112s.....it does sound better with an upgraded power cord plugged into a power conditioner, I have a shakti stone over the transport, have elevated the unit on hefty brass points and I use the millennium damper (from music direct)....and, although I am running it open ended out (RCA cables), I did invest some money in audiophile grade cables.
Before these user upgrades, I was NOT wowed by the Marantz....it now sounds stunning! And the build quality certainly surpasses the 5400 in every parameter.
Incidentally, these upgrades, though pricey, will increase the performance of ANY component no matter what the price (they do absolute wonders for the OPPOs).
I cannot comment on the Sony 5400ES as I have NOT heard it......
|
|
|
|
|
|
I will concede the 11S2 has terrific build quality but the 5400 is clearly better in my opinion after many listening sessions with both.
But perhaps the best advice is to listen to both and decide which you personally prefer. If you like a softer top end then the 11S2 may be for you.
Yes, of course ancillary gear is important but I'm basing this on good systems where the player was the only thing changed.
|
|
|
Post by rammiepie December 11, 2010 (27 of 96)
|
|
Lee Scoggins said:
I will concede the 11S2 has terrific build quality but the 5400 is clearly better in my opinion after many listening sessions with both.
But perhaps the best advice is to listen to both and decide which you personally prefer. If you like a softer top end then the 11S2 may be for you.
Yes, of course ancillary gear is important but I'm basing this on good systems where the player was the only thing changed.
Lee, my first impression was NOT at ALL positive of the SA~112s!
At first, my Meridian 808 sounded better in RBCD playback than the Marantz did in SACD playback.
I love challenges.......I thought the Marantz was a beautiful hunk of gear and I employed the "ways and means committee" in me to strive for a better sounding SA~112s.
Can I honestly tell you that it now sounds incredibly musical.....I can hear air around the instruments and breathtaking sonics but I also treat my discs and damper them. But again, those same treatments push all my playback equipment into another dimension sonically.
And let's not forget the break~in time for ALL new components ..... I would say the Marantz needs about 500 hours.
But it could also be an incompatibility problem............it loves my Meridian 861 and the feeling is mutual!
|
|
|
|
|
|
zoldar said:
Thanx for the input! That would save me the upgrade to a balanced source. I do feel, however, that I am not using the Graaf's full potential since the design is fully balanced pre and power amp. I can actually see the tubes I am not using by conecting a Single ended source.
I do like the SA8003 a lot. It does seem at times to round of the highs a bit. I wonder if the Sony might have a bit more "sparkle" but without becomming too harch. Also the strong point of the marantz is its musicality. It conveys the emotion in the music very well indeed. I wonder if the Sony is cpaable of that as well.
I find the Sony far more capable musically than any current Marantz that I have tried however my 22 year old Marantz CD94 (modified) is still playing faultlessly and is very musical for CD ,I seldom use it as the Sony combo XA5400E/DA5400ES (lowest jitter H.A.T.S.) has a D.L.L. facility that improves the sound of early CD's that most if not all reviewers have missed plus it has an excellent MM phono stage & FM tuner..I use the Sony receiver as a pre-pro in that the pre-out of the receiver feeds directly into my high end stereo amplifier for my large floor standing transmission line front speakers (no sub required) and the Sony just feeds rear & centre channel speakers this is a economical way to get high end sound without too many expensive components & cables, thank goodness for HDMI.
|
|
|
Post by zoldar December 12, 2010 (29 of 96)
|
|
I'm not looking for a verdict on what player is "better".
This is down to personal taste. Mine has been the musical, warmer sound of marantz players. I had a Marantz CD-52 mkII SE before my SA8003. It had a special musical quality in its time others lacked. But this was all with a solid state amplification.
Now I listen through a valve amp. This offers the possibility to partner it with a more sharp or detailed source. Its also a balanced design.
|
|
|
|
|
|
zoldar said:
I'm not looking for a verdict on what player is "better".
This is down to personal taste. Mine has been the musical, warmer sound of marantz players. I had a Marantz CD-52 mkII SE before my SA8003. It had a special musical quality in its time others lacked. But this was all with a solid state amplification.
Now I listen through a valve amp. This offers the possibility to partner it with a more sharp or detailed source. Its also a balanced design.
your balanced amp should be ideal with Sony which has analogue balanced outs
|
|
