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
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
3,223 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!
jetter
2,968 posts
 
Like many, I have a decent collection of CD's and records. Not thousands of cd's and records, but a lot of music nonetheless. Lately I find it hard to listen to many of my old favorites as I have heard them just too many times over the years. So if all they do is re-release old tunes, its not going to make it by me, no matter if its at half the price and no matter how wonderful the latest and greatest sounds. But my real fun is is stopping at the Salvation Army on the way home from work and picking up five or ten new records and experimenting with completely new sounds.
bluefin
111 posts
 
Add two more facts:
(1)
Some high-end redbook machines converts PCM(CD) to DSD(used in SACD) and have good result simply because coding/decoding/tranmission on DSD is simply better.
(2)
New high end CD players tend to play games on upsampling to smooth out the sound and increase the dynamic. Some upsamples at almost 5 to 10 times than orignal data. SACD used higher sampling and bits in original as is.

Today's CD machine maker is borrowing the technology from a newer SACD format. You tell me why! Are those engineers nuts?
More to discover