Thread: The pattern of Players in the Market Place

Posts: 20
Page: prev 1 2

Post by Julien August 6, 2006 (11 of 20)
Karlosak said:

I fully agree with you that the offer of "mid-fi" multichannel CD/SACD players is really poor. Most of the so called high-end audio companies seems only to care for the 2-ch listener, as if multichannel was something inferior or not needed. I don't get it, for many m-ch is the sole reason to get into these formats and the biggest sound improvement they can get...

Hi everyone,

To begin with, I believe, as do most people on this site I guess, that the improvement brought by the DSD technology is a lot richer than the possibility of multichannel audio, and is audible even with cheap equipment (which is the real proof for the superiority of the format!). And I notice that the impression among many people that SACD is essentially different than CD because it offers multichannel reproduction did not help its development.

I totally agree that we all have a budget and want to pay the less for the best. Unfortunately, as soon as you have to pay for these things, theoritically the more you pay the better the machine should be ! So unless we can't find any player above 2000$, there will always be a huge gap between different price categories. If you consider that some of the very best players can be priced above 20000$, the difference in sound quality will always be enormous compared to the 1000$ and less players (supposing you have good speakers and amplifiers and wires etc), and from my experience any human being I know who came to my place when I got new equipment (including wires and little details) could hear an obvious difference.

As for the reason why many high-end companies don't have a multichannel player, I think it's simple: any audiophile I know, me included, will try to get the best sound quality at the best price, wich means we enter a quality vs quantity dilemma. Multichannel reproduction will cost I believe three times more than stereo for the equivalent in terms of sound quality (this is usally true, not only a marketing stuff), so then I'm gonna think, why don't I instead spend three times more money to really improve sound quality on stereo ? The musical pleasure is to most audiophiles a lot greater this way, and of course most of us are not intersested in multichannel audio, because we still don't have many opportunities to hear it.

As for the more expensive players, I don't know a lot, but here are some I know (1500$ and more) that will play in multichannel:


Universal players:

Check Sony, Marantz, Denon, the Primare DVD 30 is excellent on SACD too, Esoteric makes some of the most expensive SACD players on the market, but the cheaper dv-50(still 5500$), universal player, does a very good job on sacd.

Sacd players:

Check Sony players (Sony SCD-XA777ES, SCD-555ES, SCD-XA9000ES )
Also heard about a Sony JLTi SACD Player, not sure it has mch though
Krell SACD Standard multichannel SACD player(4000$)

The best I know costs 6000$, it's the Cary Audio CD 306 SACD, and this is why I bought it (on credit!). Changed my life !

I hope this can help some of you guys, take a look at the reviews on the net !

Post by Karlosak August 6, 2006 (12 of 20)
Julien said:

As for the reason why many high-end companies don't have a multichannel player, I think it's simple: any audiophile I know, me included, will try to get the best sound quality at the best price, wich means we enter a quality vs quantity dilemma. Multichannel reproduction will cost I believe three times more than stereo for the equivalent in terms of sound quality (this is usally true, not only a marketing stuff), so then I'm gonna think, why don't I instead spend three times more money to really improve sound quality on stereo ? The musical pleasure is to most audiophiles a lot greater this way, and of course most of us are not intersested in multichannel audio, because we still don't have many opportunities to hear it.

I think the fundamental question here is:
If you had some fine multichannel setup at a certain price level and a plain stereo setup costing the same (using your 3x cost estimation, although 2.5x would be IMHO more appropriate) - this means 3-times more expensive components used in the stereo rig.
Which one would sound 'better'? I'm sure everyone knows the law of diminishing returns well and at this kind of prices it kicks in pretty fast. Personally, after hearing a multichannel setup done well, every stereo sounds boring and uninvolving in comparison. This is only true for classical and some jazz though. Other surround masters sound mostly gimmicky. In that situation the decision is easy, the m-ch won't pay off.
So far, all of my listening have been mainly through headphones. As a college student I cannot afford a speaker rig with similar quality. My headphone rig produces as good or better sound/enjoyment than 70% of very expensive speaker rigs at different hi-fi shows I visited. Should I go speakers, it would be definitely multichannel. Even 5x Castle Richmond 3i with a subwoofer would do it for me as a classical lover and bring on the pleasure...

Post by Julien August 6, 2006 (13 of 20)
Karlosak said:

I think the fundamental question here is:
If you had some fine multichannel setup at a certain price level and a plain stereo setup costing the same (using your 3x cost estimation, although 2.5x would be IMHO more appropriate) - this means 3-times more expensive components used in the stereo rig.
Which one would sound 'better'? I'm sure everyone knows the law of diminishing returns well and at this kind of prices it kicks in pretty fast. Personally, after hearing a multichannel setup done well, every stereo sounds boring and uninvolving in comparison. This is only true for classical and some jazz though. Other surround masters sound mostly gimmicky. In that situation the decision is easy, the m-ch won't pay off.
So far, all of my listening have been mainly through headphones. As a college student I cannot afford a speaker rig with similar quality. My headphone rig produces as good or better sound/enjoyment than 70% of very expensive speaker rigs at different hi-fi shows I visited. Should I go speakers, it would be definitely multichannel. Even 5x Castle Richmond 3i with a subwoofer would do it for me as a classical lover and bring on the pleasure...

I have Sennheiser HD 650 which I like a lot, with the Equinox cable and a chinese made tube headphone amp, the sound is great, but I still don't get the quality I have through my speaker system which I believe is extremely good for the price: the Cary 306 SACD is my source, my amplifier is the integrated Plinius 9200, and the speakers are Thiel CS 2.4. Good current is very important and cost a lot too, I use power snakes power distribution and power cables (Hydra and Taipan), plus good interconnects and speaker cables, I guess the whole must cost about 20000$ in the States. Although I work and earn money, the cost is always a problem, but since I live in Beijing and with the traffic here buying a car would be suicide, I decided to spend all my money on audio, equipment and mainly SACDs (XRCD do sound well too, a lot better than normal CD and I notice that although the technology doesn't quite match the SACD in matters of sound, the mastering is usually better than lots of the SACDs we find, and I believe that audibly mastering is more important than the format). I'm still on credit for my CD player !

I actually wanted to get a better headphone rig, but then I notice that my ears get too tired listening through headphones, so I think I'm going to give it all to my father who has always loved headphone listening.

What headphones do you use ? Some professionals tell me that Grado is really good too by the way.

Post by Karlosak August 7, 2006 (14 of 20)
Dear Julien,
you've got a really nice rig! An important part of the equation is room acoustics too. Sometimes it's very hard to utilise m-ch due to room proportions and space constraints.
As to my headphone setup, you can see it in my profile. I've got HD650/Equinox too, recently acquired AKG K701. I like a neutral, smooth and maybe slightly dark presentation and great comfort, so Grado headphones are out of question.
I highly recommend http://www.head-fi.org/ for any headphone related question.

Happy listening
Karel

Post by Windsurfer August 8, 2006 (15 of 20)
Julien said:

Hi everyone,

To begin with, I believe, as do most people on this site I guess, that the improvement brought by the DSD technology is a lot richer than the possibility of multichannel audio, and is audible even with cheap equipment (which is the real proof for the superiority of the format!). And I notice that the impression among many people that SACD is essentially different than CD because it offers multichannel reproduction did not help its development.

I totally agree that we all have a budget and want to pay the less for the best. Unfortunately, as soon as you have to pay for these things, theoritically the more you pay the better the machine should be ! So unless we can't find any player above 2000$, there will always be a huge gap between different price categories. If you consider that some of the very best players can be priced above 20000$, the difference in sound quality will always be enormous compared to the 1000$ and less players (supposing you have good speakers and amplifiers and wires etc), and from my experience any human being I know who came to my place when I got new equipment (including wires and little details) could hear an obvious difference.

As for the reason why many high-end companies don't have a multichannel player, I think it's simple: any audiophile I know, me included, will try to get the best sound quality at the best price, wich means we enter a quality vs quantity dilemma. Multichannel reproduction will cost I believe three times more than stereo for the equivalent in terms of sound quality (this is usally true, not only a marketing stuff), so then I'm gonna think, why don't I instead spend three times more money to really improve sound quality on stereo ? The musical pleasure is to most audiophiles a lot greater this way, and of course most of us are not intersested in multichannel audio, because we still don't have many opportunities to hear it.

As for the more expensive players, I don't know a lot, but here are some I know (1500$ and more) that will play in multichannel:


Universal players:

Check Sony, Marantz, Denon, the Primare DVD 30 is excellent on SACD too, Esoteric makes some of the most expensive SACD players on the market, but the cheaper dv-50(still 5500$), universal player, does a very good job on sacd.

Sacd players:

Check Sony players (Sony SCD-XA777ES, SCD-555ES, SCD-XA9000ES )
Also heard about a Sony JLTi SACD Player, not sure it has mch though
Krell SACD Standard multichannel SACD player(4000$)

The best I know costs 6000$, it's the Cary Audio CD 306 SACD, and this is why I bought it (on credit!). Changed my life !

I hope this can help some of you guys, take a look at the reviews on the net !

I am not sure you are correct about what most folks on the forum believe about multi-channel vs stereo. My observations are that the difference between dsd and rbcd is such that it takes a very fine audio system to show off the DSD. However, as regards multi-channel reproduction - provided you are talking about acoustic music such as classical recorded in an acoustic environment and not created electronically, properly recorded multi-channel, such as PentaTone routinely delivers, wins hands down.

It does not take five expensive speakers and amplifiers to give suberb results. My system, developed from my old stereo, has 6 speakers by 3 different manufacturers using 3 stereo amps by 3 different manufacturers and admittedly a rather fine 6 channel preamp which was, I admit costly. However the results are superb!

My dad took a slightly different route. He employed his existing stereo speakers but purchased an NAD multi-channel receiver and is using a Sony DVD/SACD player that cost him something on the order of $1000 USD. Although all my equipment is substantially more costly than his, the sound he has is surprisingly close to what I get and he is, justifiably really pleased with it. So am I! The difference is that I can play mine close to concert hall levels without enduring any "hardening" or "congestion", while his will run out of steam faster.

My surrounds speakers cost 250 USD each, the amp $850. I bought a used pair of Magneplanar 2.6r loudspeakers for $600 dollars and sent them to the manufacturer to be rebuilt at a cost of approx $1000 so the total for the center channel speakers was $1600. The amp for those speakers was one we had laying about unused and is worth about $300 on the used market.

A friend and I visited a high end store recently and listened to Bowers and Wilkens speakers costing $20,000 the pair set up with the next model down and with expensive electronics and the Krell SACD player. (Mine is a Sony XA 9000 ES)

Later on the way home the friend said my system sounded better. The store's system lacked the "bloom" that mine has, while mine equals the store's system in every other way except the way way low bass....not cello bass not even bass clarinet or contrabassoon bass, he meant low organ bass!

I am so sold on multi-channel that I am reluctant to waste my time listening in stereo any more.

Post by brenda August 8, 2006 (16 of 20)
Julien said:

.....And I notice that the impression among many people that SACD is essentially different than CD because it offers multichannel reproduction did not help its development. I totally agree that we all have a budget and want to pay the less for the best.

dear julien,
not sure about your conclusions. Yes, DSD is far preferable to 16/44 recording even on cd and is pref. to 24/92, but really gets the extra edge from its openness in m/channel. And dsd-m/c needn't cost the earth, whereas extracting the most from a rbcd, even in anc incl. dsd recording, does cost the earth. My partner's system was built around his stereo equipment with the m/c abilities added on via a good m/c amp to take the rears and centre and the requisite rears and centre speakers. He found no need to replace the basic elements of his system at all (shouldt think so too, given that they were quad esl63's with pair of valve amps and valve preamp). My own Denon/Castle m/c system cost me about £2,000 and to me sounds far better than any equivalent-cost stereo set up I've heard, whether RBCD or stereo-only SACD.

To me, whilst I enjoy stereo SACDs with DSD, the m/c layer of the same disc (if there is one) is definitely more rewarding and worth the extra outlay.

And what may help SACD survive for all of us, stereophiles or m/c-ophiles is its ability to feed into the m/c systems that are becoming de riguere for a host of platforms from new games machines to home cinema. Whereas I doubt if you asked most people what DSD was, they wouldnt be able to tell you.

regards, B

Post by Windsurfer August 9, 2006 (17 of 20)
threerandot said:

I have thought about it and I may decide on a unit like this Sony DVNPS 3100 ES DVD/SACD Player. I would use this mostly for SACD. For me to get a stand alone MCH player in this range will probably be a changer or two channel.

I actually dropped into the Sony Store and gave it a listen. Not the best speakers but the guy did have a Power Amp hooked to it. Seemed quite smooth. Would really need to bring it home and give it a try.

Anyone here know anything about this unit? Have you tried it at home?

Shawn

It looks something like my dad's dvp999ES which plays dvds and multichannel sacd and rbcds. That one is a very fine unit.

Post by Julien August 14, 2006 (18 of 20)
Well, I would love to try multichannel anyway, I guess I'll wait till I have a bigger room, my living room is 15 m2 and I don't feel like putting five speakers in that space ! Another problem is my Thiel 2.4 speakers need a good powerful amp, can I use my Plinius 9200 stereo amplifier for these two, and combine with another amplifier for surround sound ? What possibilities do I have ?

Post by The Seventh Taylor September 5, 2006 (19 of 20)
Karlosak said:

What about Sony SCD-XA3000ES?

This week, Sony Japan announced a new model, the SCD-XA1200ES. It looks like a follow-up to the SCD-XA3000ES -- same design but silver finishing and possibly cheaper. The Japanese price is 94,500 Yen, which equates to 815 US Dollars. Prices in Japan are generally higher than in the US but I haven't seen Sony Electronics make any announcement regarding release of this device in the US or anywhere else outside Japan for that matter.

See http://www.watch.impress.co.jp/av/docs/20060905/sony.htm
or http://www.sony.jp/CorporateCruise/Press/200609/06-0905/

Note: the CD/SACD player is multi-channel but the amplifier announced in the same article is stereo only.

T7T

Post by DrZhivago September 5, 2006 (20 of 20)
I strongly suspect that this will be a replacement for QS players sold in Japan, Europe, South East Asia and Australia (think Sony is phasing out QS badging). We can expect further one or two players as replacements for XA3000 and XA9000.


Cheers

Page: prev 1 2

Closed