2. digital
  3. 1052700774

Shanling T100 to the T200 shootout

I got a chance to listen to these two players today and was wondering what others think about these. First these are both really good players. I was listening to them on a really high end Krell (not sure the models .. really big monoblocks) and B&W signature 800 system. For me, I did not hear any memorable difference between the two for redbook CD. Some people have stated the T100 sounds better but I liked them both. SACD was quit interesting... I used the following disks: Chick Corea Rendezvous in NY, Moussorgsky Pictures at an Exhibition (telarc), and Monty meets Sly and Robbie (telarc). The last disc showed very little difference between CD and SACD I think do to the heavy bass like that dominates the recording. The CC showed little difference in instruments like the vibraphone and vocals (which surprised me) but a significant difference in the Piano. In CD mode the Piano seemed to be almost secondary to vocals and the vibes. In SACD mode the piano really stood out. It became really obvious that he was playing really fine grand piano and not something smaller. looking back at the liner notes it turns out to have been a 9 ft Yamaha concert grand. You could really hear the hammer hit. On the Moussorgsky the whole orchestra was bigger, more dynamic, and cleaner..

The one thing that did not really change was the imaging, both imaged well. The soundstage was not much bigger or wider it was just cleaner somehow. I'm thinking about picking up the T200 but I can get the T100 at a great price.

I only spent a couple of hours and would like to hear from someone that has spent some time with these players...
Thanks
Bruce
btrvalik
Post removed 
ljgj
955 posts
 
Unless you are willing to commit to SACD than just go for the T100 and get the modified version - it steps things up a great deal. Also the 200 does not decode HDCD if that makes a difference.
btrvalik OP
61 posts
 
I did not realise these have been selling poorly.. My local dealer said the T100 has been discontinued, hence the good price. One thing this has convinced me of is that the average consumer will never buy SACD just for better 2 channel audio. IMHO the differences between the two formats were subtle even on a super high-end system with me listening like a surgeon. If I did a direct switch between the formats on the current track it was obvious but if I listened from the beining to the CD layer it did not sound like anything was really lacking. Sort of like the tube vs transistor level of difference... maybe a little more. Maybe the wow factor of multi-channel will be enough to keep sacd and dvd-a alive...it didn't work for quad... I find it interesting that I've never walked into a high-end shop that has said "you got to hear this...I've got the new xxxx SA or DVD-A player" Even the drug pushers are not convinced..
Post removed 
btrvalik OP
61 posts
 
It seems like many of the high-end SACD player are 2 channel. Currently I'm looking for a play for my 2 channel CJ based system so the lack of multi channel is not an issue. In my mind it is hard (and expensive) enough to put together a really nice 2 channel system. Between getting the room acoustics right and maintaining a good looking room 2 channel is all I can do on the main floor of the house. My main issue is that I don't upgrade often so my decision will stick for a number of years. I will buy a universal player of some sort this fall for my HT system to experience the whole multichannel audio thing. This room is a play room where looks are not as important and I will be willing to give up some sonics.. it's primarily for movies. I think I'm going to have to give these another listen...
More to discover