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
trelja
3,224 posts
 
First, an audiophile who does not admit to the superiority of SACD over CD falls into one of the following:
1) the system does not have the capability to show the differences
2) they themselves do not have the capability of hearing the difference
3) is lying
4) owns a VERY special CD player. And, please let's not flatter ourselves here, most of us do not
5) has not listened to the new format in an appropriate setting

The first 3 or these may be hard to stomach, but we need to seek truth, not political correctness.

The reason why the high resolution formats are not taking root is software. The available software excites very few people. Instead, we have been offered 3 or 4 titles in many categories of music, leading to the format being several miles wide, but only several inches deep. Most of us, like me, fall into all of this of owning a player, wanting to buy music, yet being only able to buy something her or there.

Again, I have the player. I am ready, able, and willing to buy music. When I go to the record store(wonder why I still call it that), I first check out the SACD section, and am only able to purchase something once in a great while. Why can't I simply go to the store, and if I am in the mood for Bjork, buy a Bjork SACD? The release of The Police, Dylan, and The Stones on SACD is encouraging, but what about Limp Bizkit, Mase, and Staind?

The war between SACD and DVD-A is insignificant next to the war between CD and the high resolution formats.

While I cannot speak as an authority on the superiority of SACD or DVD-A over one another, my opinion is that SACD is the audiophile's choice from a user's perspective. The very requirement of a display negates DVD-A from being a format targeted to us. Moreover, as time passes, the propoents of DVD-A have proven to be a collection of crybabies and primadonas. Instead of focusing on the benefits of their system, they tend to trash SACD and anyone who carries that flag.
ben_campbell
1,169 posts
 
Trelja,
That's a pretty defensive stance-I for one wanted to embrace SACD I can't help it if it hasn't worked out for me..
I'm delighted for those who have embraced it and they are happy with it.
What level of system do you think should show up the differences?
Also the ability to buy a very good SACD player is limited perhaps out with the pretty serious cash-this is just as big a problem as you rightly point out about the software.
I considered my next upgrade to be a higher end SACD player-in the 4th biggest city in the UK I couldn't find one to audition and the CD replay capabilities I read about didn't want make me want to but a 777ES without hearing it...add to the lack of software and the descision wasn't hard.
I admit not to being a typical audiophille I probably want to be hit the eyes (ears?) with large differences on upgrading/replacing and perhaps it is partly my fault but..
I'm not into bashing SACD these forums are important about sharing experiences and I started out pro-SACD but ended up indifferent to the format.
Anyway isn't vinyl the true audiophiles choice?
:-)
btrvalik OP
61 posts
 
I'll take your list as being pointed and not a flame...

1) the system does not have the capability to show the differences

The system used for the test (about 30-40K worth of Krell and B&W) is most likely more accurate than my CJ based system at home. So if it takes a better system than either of these the difference is kind of subtle..

2) they themselves do not have the capability of hearing the difference

Could be the case, if it is all the better.. I can use the cash to buy other expensive toys... I'm not trying to sway anyones opion here I'm just tying to figure out what I want to buy...

3) is lying

This is a bit accusatory.. The fact of the matter is I really want to convince myself high res is better... the math says it is.. I really want to buy a SACD player.. the problem is I can't seem to lie to myself...

4) owns a VERY special CD player. And, please let's not flatter ourselves here, most of us do not

I'm currently using a rather old Sony ES that is not bad but not even SLIGHTLY special..

5) has not listened to the new format in an appropriate setting
If I can't hear the difference in a fully treated room.. what is the chase my house is more appropriate ? If you look back at my original post my first impression was that SACD was better. On a second extended listen I'm not so sure... I still find it interesting that the guys at the audio store who tend to profit more if I buy the SACD player are not so convinced either. They just say "it's a different sound.. some like it some don't". On other gear they are very clear as to what they like and don't like about the gear they carry.

Beyond all that ... you hit the nail on the head..the real issue is the software. If the difference is not something that most audiophiles adore the average joe does not stand a chance. Without the average Joe SACD does not stand a chance. Let's face it Sony & Phillips are in it for the money.. they are hoping their investment in SACD pays off. If it does not it will die on the vine. These guys are in trouble since their royalties on the original CD patent have already or will soon run out. That is not to say SACD is just hype by a big nasty corpration... I would do the same thing... If the revenue from a current product is going to go down I will do my best to come up with the next best thing... It just may be too good for simple cash spending mortals.
bluefin
111 posts
 
In the beginning, I try to A/B same versin of SACD and CD. Not impressed by remastered recording from 10 or 20 years ago. Then, try DSD recording Mahler symphony by TELARC. Don't even need to bother A/B, that's something I can only hear from LP. Since then, I have been trying to convince people to give SACD chances.

As far as some people has very advanced CD player upsampling like crazy or adding tube to the output. Some companies try to push the sound quality based on existing CD source people have. However, I think, you can have the same or better quality at SACD at lower lost.
Using tube preamp and a mid priced SACD player would be cheaper at this point, although I agree we need more software. "Tube" is still the same "dirty trick" by many CD player makers now. It smooth out the sound, I am not surprized by the comment of "not much difference between CD v.s. SACD on tube based machines", especially on Krell/B&W type of setup(these things usually need tube somewhere in the link to warm things up). It is the "tube" dominate most of sound. Besides the magic of "tube", my ears told me that SACD is better format than CD. All those CD machines upsampling to high frequency, aren't they trying to design a CD player sound like a "more true&honest" SACD?
trelja
3,224 posts
 
Yes, I definitely wanted to make a point and not flame. My list said people who do not prefer SACD to CD fall into ONE of those categories, not all. And, yes, I truly come across peole who lie about the sonics.

I use SACD in my second system, and while I am comfortable with its performance, it is no better than snayone else's on the site. SACDs do sound better than CD. Perticularly in the area of the foundation of music, which is where CD most bothers me. Also, there is a sense of the music flowing(as opposed to chopping the event into tiny, tiny frames), which I also fault CD heavily on. Those 2 things are why I like vinyl better than CD. I usually say to myself, "Hey, this disc/my system sounds really good!" when listening to an SACD.

One more thing, in no way do I feel SACD is superior to vinyl!
More to discover