Did a few more comparisons.
Replaced the Rhea with the BAT P5 and found possibly a bit more warmth to the midrange body but a bit of edge to the leading edge of the midrange. Wee less refined on soundstage and detail. This is in comparison to the Marantz on quick switch.
Then I opened and cleaned my Pat Barber- Split LP and compared it to the CD. Alto LP pressing and Floyd-Chicago aluminum CD.
Different masterings I would guess. Different tonal presentation readily apparent. CD was brighter with more air but no more edge or grain. LP was warmer with more midrange presense but less air. Gave the impression of a bit of mud in comparison. LP was easier to listen to but seemed less alive. The LP had less detail also. I would say Pat's voice was more caressing with the LP. I also think the LP was a little less defined in soundstage presentation.
What does this all highlight. Watch the media and masterings when one compares LP vs CD of course. And, in addition, different systems may give different results. So here is a put it together story.
But I think that when I compare the Marantz with a similar mastered recording on LP, the result is very close to what I can do with LP. Might be analogue war words tho. But again, watch the media format mastering. Can't wait for the P10SE.
I would like to do a comparison with the SACD presentation of the Marantz since this is the reason for this thread. However, I don't have any duplicate LPs for the SACDs I have. I have some duplicate CDs and SACDs but I would not have the benefit of quick switch. The comparisons would be less immediate. And, are the original master recordings different independent of the different digital processes?
I just sold my Sony 9000ES DVP because it didn't seem to make a sensible musical presentation (detail, soundstage and individual imaging) compared to the Marantz.
The Marantz seems broken in now with 4 days of continuous play mode, although I have had the Marantz for longer.
The overall picture here is the Marantz is a keeper.
B
Replaced the Rhea with the BAT P5 and found possibly a bit more warmth to the midrange body but a bit of edge to the leading edge of the midrange. Wee less refined on soundstage and detail. This is in comparison to the Marantz on quick switch.
Then I opened and cleaned my Pat Barber- Split LP and compared it to the CD. Alto LP pressing and Floyd-Chicago aluminum CD.
Different masterings I would guess. Different tonal presentation readily apparent. CD was brighter with more air but no more edge or grain. LP was warmer with more midrange presense but less air. Gave the impression of a bit of mud in comparison. LP was easier to listen to but seemed less alive. The LP had less detail also. I would say Pat's voice was more caressing with the LP. I also think the LP was a little less defined in soundstage presentation.
What does this all highlight. Watch the media and masterings when one compares LP vs CD of course. And, in addition, different systems may give different results. So here is a put it together story.
But I think that when I compare the Marantz with a similar mastered recording on LP, the result is very close to what I can do with LP. Might be analogue war words tho. But again, watch the media format mastering. Can't wait for the P10SE.
I would like to do a comparison with the SACD presentation of the Marantz since this is the reason for this thread. However, I don't have any duplicate LPs for the SACDs I have. I have some duplicate CDs and SACDs but I would not have the benefit of quick switch. The comparisons would be less immediate. And, are the original master recordings different independent of the different digital processes?
I just sold my Sony 9000ES DVP because it didn't seem to make a sensible musical presentation (detail, soundstage and individual imaging) compared to the Marantz.
The Marantz seems broken in now with 4 days of continuous play mode, although I have had the Marantz for longer.
The overall picture here is the Marantz is a keeper.
B