What use is a "perfect" reproducing system if there is not "perfect" recording solution. Any and all recordings are intrinsically constrained and the better ones either were made by people with skill and understanding of the process to get the "best" from it or by chance are very good. However even those decisions are gated by the recordists ability and tools for judging the efforts. And recording is as much an artwork as the music contained. Which also says that different presentations will work better for different recordings (much like different galleries, lighting etc. for paintings).
I was just curious if anyone had heard, or even knew, of these players. And it seems nobody has.
Marantz has kept the Service Manuals from getting out on the net. Thus, there are no schematics of what is inside the player.
Well, I do have access to an Oppo 105 for sacd ripping, if I choose to go that way at some point in the future. But playing discs is just too easy and now I have a reliable laser transport. My main music interest is classical music and I just plain prefer the discs and the booklets and all that.
It's the best you've had, let's hope some anonymous internet person doesn't come along and say, yes I've heard it, it's crap.
What an absolute piece of rubbish!!! What prompted you to come up with this. No I don't care either, though as usual it is best to think before posting.
FWIW, there are numerous comments on other forums of folks who bought one of the new Marantz players and didn't like them, and sold them.
Because of similar measurements and a lower cost. Fair enough, but I am personally not entirely sure this tells us the whole story.
Yeah...
Demian, I certainly do not really disagree. But for me, life is too short for that approach! I mean, for example, in HQP there are a myriad of filter choices, each with a slightly different presentation, and theoretically, looking at recordings in the way which you suggest, one could try all the possible choices and find the ideal filter for each recording after many hours, but that approach is way too wasteful of time for me. I accept that recordings are flawed, or not, and my approach is for what I have some control over (the playback system) to be honest to presenting what is on the recording as possible, with perhaps the slightest bit of a forgiving quality (and I am talking just a slight bit, not tube amp gobs of distortion, but perhaps soft driver loudspeaker rather than metal) to accommodate some of the really edgy recordings. As i already process files in the computer, a bit of EQ here and there could be applied, and perhaps a softer room.
But I love music, and not all the music I love is the most "perfectly" recorded, I am still gong to listen to that music I love: I am not one to seek out music just in order to show of my audio system. But what I have found in playback gear, is that the closer one gets to transparency, the better all recordings seem to sound and the more different from each other all recordings seem to sound. I do not believe that as one approaches transparency the sound gets "clinical" as some seem to suggest, I think if that if that happens, there is a flaw in the system which is being revealed and need to be addressed.
@Scott Joplin, indeed, good references for such are virtually impossible to have. My GF is a musician, and does quite a bit of live performing and recording. And I have occasion to be present at both, so that can help in terms of references-even then manipulations (even as simple as mike placement/choice) will change things from how they sound in the room/venue-but at least this is a pretty close approximation. I also make some purist stereo recordings for fun and knowledge. Which can help as well. And hearing as much live music as is reasonable, not very reasonable now, except for what we might play ourselves, but soon again.
Demian, I certainly do not really disagree. But for me, life is too short for that approach! I mean, for example, in HQP there are a myriad of filter choices, each with a slightly different presentation, and theoretically, looking at recordings in the way which you suggest, one could try all the possible choices and find the ideal filter for each recording after many hours, but that approach is way too wasteful of time for me. I accept that recordings are flawed, or not, and my approach is for what I have some control over (the playback system) to be honest to presenting what is on the recording as possible, with perhaps the slightest bit of a forgiving quality (and I am talking just a slight bit, not tube amp gobs of distortion, but perhaps soft driver loudspeaker rather than metal) to accommodate some of the really edgy recordings. As i already process files in the computer, a bit of EQ here and there could be applied, and perhaps a softer room.
But I love music, and not all the music I love is the most "perfectly" recorded, I am still gong to listen to that music I love: I am not one to seek out music just in order to show of my audio system. But what I have found in playback gear, is that the closer one gets to transparency, the better all recordings seem to sound and the more different from each other all recordings seem to sound. I do not believe that as one approaches transparency the sound gets "clinical" as some seem to suggest, I think if that if that happens, there is a flaw in the system which is being revealed and need to be addressed.
@Scott Joplin, indeed, good references for such are virtually impossible to have. My GF is a musician, and does quite a bit of live performing and recording. And I have occasion to be present at both, so that can help in terms of references-even then manipulations (even as simple as mike placement/choice) will change things from how they sound in the room/venue-but at least this is a pretty close approximation. I also make some purist stereo recordings for fun and knowledge. Which can help as well. And hearing as much live music as is reasonable, not very reasonable now, except for what we might play ourselves, but soon again.
Last edited:
I agree, I don't understand when people say poor recordings sound better on poor equipment, I've never found that to be the case, Jelly Roll Morton has sounded better as my system has improved
Making your own recordings would probably be the closest way to be sure. How about making an analogue version and a digital version and comparing them, that should tell you most about how accurate the conversion is?
One has to decide for oneself, for certain. Opinions of others can certainly be helpful, though context is everything.
When a poster on hraudio.net posts glowing remarks about the SA-10 and DSD recorded sacd's, music that I listen to a lot. I take notice.
When a poster on Audioasylum posts about how the SA-10 or Ruby just didn't do it for them, so they sold it. They also mention the music they listen to, and it's not what I listen to. I take notice but......wonder.
There is hardly a piece of audio gear, commercial or diy, that doesn't get the full range of comments from best to worst and everything in between.
I bought the Ruby for it's reliable transport mechanism. The fact that it has the best sound I've heard, especially with DSD recorded sacd's......is a real bonus.
So
Much is system related. Audio systems are the wild west, as there are little to no accepted standards for connecting equipment together.
I see all these DACs which measure "perfectly" with the standard set of measurements on an AP, for example, but that does not tell us what kind of RF might coming out of their outputs. And then, how does the preamp or amplifier, down the chain react to that RF, or not? I suspect this can cause problems for some components and not for others, even though the DAC measures "perfectly" at ASR, for example...
I am sure Demian Martin could speak to this with much more authority than I...
Much is system related. Audio systems are the wild west, as there are little to no accepted standards for connecting equipment together.
I see all these DACs which measure "perfectly" with the standard set of measurements on an AP, for example, but that does not tell us what kind of RF might coming out of their outputs. And then, how does the preamp or amplifier, down the chain react to that RF, or not? I suspect this can cause problems for some components and not for others, even though the DAC measures "perfectly" at ASR, for example...
I am sure Demian Martin could speak to this with much more authority than I...
Why do we do both? We can reduce distortion as small as possible, and IF the distortion still audible than the sound is still pleasant.
The...
Drawback with that approach is that one has to believe they KNOW which distortions/artifacts are important.
We now have, or are very close to having (excepting the loudspeaker) the technology and ability to reduce all distortions and artifacts to levels where they are entirely inaudible, and if we do so, all that is left is what is on the recording. this is a much better and more accurate, hi fidelity approach, than assuming we KNOW which distortions/artifacts are important, as such is a subjective process and will not be agreed upon by all. If we allow any distortions/artifacts to exist, they are by definition colorations, and are not part of the artistic expression of the musicians or recording (creative) processes. The playback system should not, ultimately, color the sound, the goal should be transparency.
Drawback with that approach is that one has to believe they KNOW which distortions/artifacts are important.
We now have, or are very close to having (excepting the loudspeaker) the technology and ability to reduce all distortions and artifacts to levels where they are entirely inaudible, and if we do so, all that is left is what is on the recording. this is a much better and more accurate, hi fidelity approach, than assuming we KNOW which distortions/artifacts are important, as such is a subjective process and will not be agreed upon by all. If we allow any distortions/artifacts to exist, they are by definition colorations, and are not part of the artistic expression of the musicians or recording (creative) processes. The playback system should not, ultimately, color the sound, the goal should be transparency.
100% - I'm glad someone here get's it!
Most people in this forum don't appear to have the slightest clue about what
really is involved in the recording process.
TCD
That level has been reached already decades ago. If you know of a DAC that has distortions and artifacts even less inaudible than a cheap DAC (< $100), please share the info.
I'll bet it sounds indistinguishable to cheap DAC when listened to at matched level and without looking.
I'm still waiting for you to inform us exactly what those levels and types of
distortions are.
TCD
I agree. But we only know average human threshold of hearing (if we make a progress in technology, the threshold may be changing also) and we can not make distortion less of anything. It have always a trade off. Anyway, it is all about engineering.