Best SACD player for the money - Marantz SA-11S1


My sense is that the Ed Meitner unit is the best SACD together with the Esoteric DV-50. However, after a lot of research on the net my sense is that there is a new player that is in the same top notch category for a lot less. This is the Marantz SA-11S1. Two channel - Great. I am not interested in five channels. My sense is that it is a great value for about $ 3,000. Looking for folks that have the player and hear their experience compared to the other top notch players. I currently have a Sony SCD-C555ES and think the Marantz will be a lot better than a Modified Sony unit. Thanks for responding.
dcaudio
I made a quantum leap in CD playback when I went from a warm-sounding and very listenable NAD CD player to the SA-11S1. RB's sound fabulous on my SA-11S1. I enjoy listening to my archived CD collection more than my relatively new SACD's. My search is over for a CD/SACD player (for now!).

Hi;

Just doing some comparison with the SA-11S1 and a Nottingham Dais with Shelter 901. The reason for the compare is to evaluate an A. Rhea with a BAT P5. Really looking at the P10SE but the dealer has to order. The P5 is a bit un-refined compared to the Rhea etc. They go into a Sonic Euphoria then into a BAT 6200. The Euphoria strips the grain and edge that I don't need. Transparent too. Dali MS4s. Plenty of dynamics and tight bass. I desire no more dynamics with the system. In fact, with the Rhea and a Sade lo-fi LP I got in some passages such transients I was essentually assulted. The transients were in the upper mids.

Acoustic room treatment has made a nice improvement in coherence, soundstage and palpability(image density).

Listening to the Marantz with Pat Barber, Split and Modern Cool CDs, I get a lush warm voice tho I hear the difference in recordings. The Split being brighter and less bass heavy. But brighter does not mean edge. Close piano recordings like MacDowell/Griffes- Toco on Gasparo sound dynamic, articulate and breathtakingly real. The Marantz player reflects accurately the slight brightness in this series, possibly consistent with close recordings. The Burmeister(sp?) 3 CD is shown off nicely with natural range of tonality and easy portrail of dynamics. Can't find any brightness that bothers me there and I don't like too much brightness/tip up. On Hugh's tract and recent CD the trumpet and sax are warm and lush. They must not have captured the piercing bite of a brass instruments as much as its overall character.

The Dalis seem so accurate and do not get bright and hyper detailed as an over all character. They more respond to the recording and can go from lush to detailed when called for. Placing the Marantz in my Cello Serafin setup with Dynaudio drivers I do get a smoother sound but colored and not as accurate. More for late nite listening to relax just before bedtime. I have actually nodded off with the Serafins, Marantz and the Sonic Euphonia. That is not to say the dynamics are lost or I am bored, just that the music washes away the day and clears my head of distractions. I don't play loud at those times and simply feel the caress of certain music.

So on the the real meat.

This is qualified by the fact that there may be a difference in medias. I have compared the 1991 Private Music CD of Jennifer Warne's FBR with the heavy pressing LP 180 gm Rock House/Private Music. I am limited in comparisons between the Marantz and Nottingham because of the limited amount of same recordings that I have. And I would always be risking different masterings. I do think the FBR is a bright recording, but now I can listen to it with the Sonic Euphoria. I had trouble with the recording with a prior Cello Palatte and cranked the midrange tone controls down. I even felt tired after listening to the CD in the past, but liked the performance. Now the brightness does not carry edge and grain. It is still over all one of the brightest recordings that I listen to however.

I was able to listen a few seconds apart btn the LP and CD with the flick of the input on the Sonic Euphoria.

I felt the over all tonality was very close and even got lost in identifying the input with the source. If I had to do an A/B/X, the way I would tell the two sources apart would be the better bass on the LP/Dais. Imaging and soundstage were too close. Tonal balance was too close to call, so if it is well documented that these two medias are vastly different, then throw this long post out. Don't forget the contributions of the Rhea that could be the equalizer. I am really looking for differences that are apparent enough to play into a decision on what equipment to live with for ever.

My conclusions are that the Marantz is staying since it compares favorably with the Rhea presentation. I think it holds its own on accuracy and tonal balance. However I am more interested in obtaining the BAT phono pre to acquire the midrange of the BAT. The Rhea may win on bass and accuracy/detail/soundstage. The BAT may not be as stark accurate as many other phono pres, but it may be more listenable. A little bit of BAT warmth may lead me to embrace the music just a bit more and feel its caress. Wow, was that a roller coaster the Rhea took me on during the break in. It may not be there yet after five days of constant on and use but it has to be close. That may be a small qualification also.

Myself, I enjoy classic rock, jazz, blues and classical music. Not too many rock recordings that tickle my audiophile fancy. I live in a rural area and don't get to listen to many other serious systems. I have been to a few Stereophile shows and walk out of most rooms saying "No". I walk out of most stereo dealer rooms with the same comment. I don't get as much time to listen as I would like since I put in many hours at work. And when I do listen, I may be tired and simply want to let the music wash away the day. Non critical enjoyment. I am quick to dispense with treble up/hyper detail since I want the music to present as an organic whole and not as so many individual pieces that I have to work to put together. The detail I get with the Sonic Euphoria and Dali combo was astounding but it still fits in the musical picture and does not hold my attention hostage. I do my most critical listening over rarer chunks of free time and when I am juggling system components. I have a little bit of time to follow the wonderful Audiogon forum.

Soon
BOSRT (Bridge of Sighs-Robin Trower)
Hi;

I should add that I have the Shelter 901 at 47K on the Rhea and BAT P5.

Also, I have taken the Rhea straight into the 6200 and am happy with the Sonic Euphoria. Gives up nothing and adds volume control.

The purpose of the post is to state that the Marantz is good in my system. I am considering the BAT P10SE for a different presentation as compared to CD.
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
Nice equipment and quite a statement about the SA11.
Great user name by the way. Bridge of Sighs one of the better blues rock LP's of all time.