New Marantz SA11S2?

Seriously, Mr. Tennis comments are so far off the reality of the sonics, there in no point in arguing with him further. There are many reasons for negative comments on pieces, and I'm not pointing a finger, because I don't know each individual's motives. But I can tell you that there is ring, body, fullness, warmth and a transport that will beat anything in this price range. It truly is one of the finest trsnsports ever made.

Marantz hit a home run with this, and it is now simply the fact that it is over a year old model, and that shows how fickle the audiophile commmunity is.

My forthcoming review will include both the Pearl SACD player and the Pearl integrated. Less than 200 of each were brought in by Marantz USA. The other 300 are international. I'll say no more than Mr. Fremer's comparison between the SA11-S@ and the Pearl player are not what I hear, and I have exhausted myself with comparisons. These players do not sound that different. There are differences, but not always in favor of the Pearl. Indeed, the SA11's transport alone would make my choice. It is actually amazing how similar the sonics are when the Pearl player is based on the SA15S2 circuit, not the more expensive balanced SA11 circuit.

hi aear:

what you can say is that my (idiosyncratic) taste is very different from many posters on this and other forums, and therefore, my opninions may or may not be useful to some , some of the time.

realize as well, that there are a lot of variables which underlie my comments, as well as definitions which imply warm and bloom are euphonic colorations.

however, your comment regarding reality and sonics is philosophically invalid.

I must say that I had my doubts about the sa11. It does take a long time to break in. A very long time. Longer than 500 hours. Although after 500 hours, it does start to sound much better. After a thousand hours, it sounds even better. It actually sounded very close to my analog front end which I was shocked to hear. it is warm sounding, but not overly so. I had a audiophile friend come over to listen the other day to the Sa11 S2. He was a Doubting Thomas. He is not anymore. He could not believe what he was hearing or should I say not hearing on his system. He was very impressed with it. It just keeps getting better with each day. It's a great player and very versatile as well. If others did not like the way it sounded, so be it, It is what it is. I too do not like eveything I hear and many pieces I do not like are very highly touted to say the least. We all have our preferences. I will say that I am sold on it but it did take a while. I did not like it at first but wow does it get better, every day.

Mrtennis, I said I wouldn't argue with you about this, but I can't let your reply go unresponded to.

My comment about sonics you say is "Philosophically invalid", which is one of the most non-sensical use of words I've heard yet. You are saying nothing.

In your first response to this post, you claim the player has no bloom or warmth and is thin, which is completely inaccurate. Now, you talk about warm and bloom as euphonic colorations, implying that is what this player sounds like. Sounds pretty contradictory, doesn't it?

I don't agree with Fremer on all his opinions by far, but even he said this player had warmth, and never described it as thin in any way, which he would have done, knowing his writings and inclinations.

If you wish to continue to despise a very good soundng player, I question your motives, or your system, or your hearing. Why don't you list what your system is? I've described mine in my past reviews, which can be looked up under my name.

hi zear:

this is the last staements on the subject, as i don't own the player , and it is an unimportant subjecy. i will also list my system.

1) i said that the player is not warm andd has no bloom. my definitions of each term imply euphonic colorations. i have noy contradicted myself because i have consistently said i find the player on the thin side., which is why i sold it. thus i have not contradicted myself. different definitions lead to different conclusions.

now as to my system:

speakers: magnepan 1.6 and quad 57
preamp:bent tvc passive:
amp:vtl deluxw 120
cables: interconnects--soundstring and cryoset copper
power cords:sound string, ear to ear and western electric copper
cables:speaker: ear to ear
other accessories: sound fusion sound busters beneath most component, furniture foam under dac and transport, chang is0 160, bob young line filter and egg crate mattresses on walls, some room tunes as well.
digital source(s):ps audio pwd and pwt, audio note cd2 and oppo 83 se.

conclusion for me is i did not contrdict myself, if you read wmy words carefully., and in absence of yje marantz in my system, there is not much more to say about the subject.

incidentally, your use of the word inaccurate as applied to the marantz is your opinion. if you don't agree with my hearing it does not suggest a defect in my hearing or system or system set up.

fortunately for both us, i assume, this discussion is not personal only the disagreements among human beings.