|
|
|
|
The Marantz SA7001 KI will be available in 2006 for Europe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
What's up with CE mfrs releasing mostly 2 channel SACD player recently? I thought the most compelling reason for SACD is its MC capability. IMHO this is a real step backward for the format.
|
|
|
Post by DSD October 10, 2005 (3 of 15)
|
|
audionoob said:
What's up with CE mfrs releasing mostly 2 channel SACD player recently? I thought the most compelling reason for SACD is its MC capability. IMHO this is a real step backward for the format.
Because high-end audio is mostly 2 channel. SACD made its sonic claim to fame among 2 channel audiophiles, of which I am one. SACD premiered as a high-end 2-channel format in 1998. It was not until the fall of 2000 that Multi-channel SACD was debuted
I own 2 SACD players and they are both 2 channel. I personally have no interested in Multi-Channel at all, as I prefer the greater depth and soundstaging of 2-channel audio even though it has a narrower "sweet spot" than Multi-Channel. Also I have 2 floor-standing speakers which took 6 months to find just the right spot to present a huge image. There is no way I have room for 6 floor-standing speakers, as I abhor the distorted thump thump bass of subwoofers. I have listened to many sub-woofers and the only one that didn't sound terrible is the Carver Amazing. I will stick with floor-standing speakers and 2 channel SACD, thank you.
The step forward of the SACD format is REALISTIC SONICS in either 2 channel Stereo or Multi-Channel.
Teresa
|
|
|
Post by Myrantz October 11, 2005 (4 of 15)
|
|
It's a nice looking player. I think the world is big enough for manufacturers to cater for specific wants. If the 2 channel audio enthusiasts want 2 channel only high end machines then good for them - it's their money and their ears. There is also the reality of many people having confined space which can be difficult to accomodate multiple speakers, so like it or not, they become part of that 'audiophile' set which denounces hi-res surround. Personally, I like both and I listen to both, but when it's done right, multi-channel SACD for me, is hard to beat for getting right in there amongst the music.
I doubt I'll ever see this new Marantz machine and others in the range anyway seeing as how here in Australia the distributors have appointed a high profile national chain to sell the gear except that when speaking to a sales consultant in the largest store in my city, he said they won't be stocking the higher end stuff as it is to slow to move. Good one Marantz - guess I'll be keeping my Denon for some time yet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
DSD said:
Because high-end audio is mostly 2 channel. SACD made its sonic claim to fame among 2 channel audiophiles, of which I am one. SACD premiered as a high-end 2-channel format in 1998. It was not until the fall of 2000 that Multi-channel SACD was debuted
I own 2 SACD players and they are both 2 channel. I personally have no interested in Multi-Channel at all, as I prefer the greater depth and soundstaging of 2-channel audio even though it has a narrower "sweet spot" than Multi-Channel. Also I have 2 floor-standing speakers which took 6 months to find just the right spot to present a huge image. There is no way I have room for 6 floor-standing speakers, as I abhor the distorted thump thump bass of subwoofers. I have listened to many sub-woofers and the only one that didn't sound terrible is the Carver Amazing. I will stick with floor-standing speakers and 2 channel SACD, thank you.
The step forward of the SACD format is REALISTIC SONICS in either 2 channel Stereo or Multi-Channel.
Teresa
This is not a stereo vs MC issue. This is an issue about choices. I want to able to listen to both stereo and MC on my SACD player. Nowadays if you are a MC affectionado like me, there is lack of choices when it comes to high end MC SACD player.
|
|
|
Post by Claude October 11, 2005 (6 of 15)
|
|
I think these players are for the many music-only fans (no home cinema so no 5.1 setup) who want an excellent CD player with added SACD playback.
That is a reasonable choice given that 99 out of 100 new releases are CDs and that SACD is just the cherry on the cake.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Claude said:
I think these players are for the many music-only fans (no home cinema so no 5.1 setup) who want an excellent CD player with added SACD playback.
That is a reasonable choice given that 99 out of 100 new releases are CDs and that SACD is just the cherry on the cake.
Claude
From personal experience and the comments in the recent Gramophone supplement, I find that most music-only fans, having heard MCH consider MCH to be a critical part of the musical experience. The only reason I purchased a surround system was to get the MCH experience (DVD MCH was a bonus but not the driving force behind the decision).
SACD is a very good cherry though!
|
|
|
Post by Claude October 11, 2005 (8 of 15)
|
|
It also depends on the music preferences.
For a classical music lover a surround setup is certainly worth it since almost all new recordings are multichannel. But someone who mainly buys rock and jazz oldies will have very few multichannel discs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The standard SA7001 will cost about €600.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Claude said:
It also depends on the music preferences.
For a classical music lover a surround setup is certainly worth it since almost all new recordings are multichannel. But someone who mainly buys rock and jazz oldies will have very few multichannel discs.
Agreed.
|
|
