Hi, Peter here Guido's friend. I have yet to hear a DV50. I'm still thinking about the Sony SCD-XA9000. Last December, Atkinson gave it a great review. Others have proclaimed it wonderful on SACD, but maybe showing some compromises on Redbook. I'd love to hear theMarantz SA-11, but I was at the Marantz dealer today and he didn't have one. I did get to hear the DV-9500 and also the Linn 2.1. The 9500 was quite good, but I felt lost its focus to an unreasonable degree with Redbook. The Linn 2.1 was very dimensional, focused and detailed. Some have reported that the Linn sounds "dry." This was not my experience. It had great extended highs. Perhaps, some have felt that its bass is lean. To me, the bass was tight and very fast. The Marantz, with which I did a side by side comparison had more bass extension for sure, but it tended to be muddy sounding next to the Linn. I use an LP12 turntable, so I may be just spoiled by that tight Linn sound.
Another player that has gotten stellar reviews, but hasn't been mentioned is the Accuphase DP77. Has anyone heard it? List is $8500, I believe. I don't know that I can go that much on a new front-end, but I'd like to get something very good for the money. That's why I'm quite anxious to hear first-hand reports on the $3k Sony and the $3K Marantz SA-11.
As Guido mentioned, I have a Denon 2200. He was kind in his paraphrase of my opinion. In reality, it's a real stinker. It's actually pretty acceptable on Redbook, but sounds bright and glarey with SACD and unnaturally balanced toward the bottom with DVD Audio. I bought it mainly on the basis of a quite positive mention in TAS 149 relative to some other players that cost more, but I failed to read between the lines enough to realize the level of compromise I'd be making.
On a side note, I was at the dealer today to picj up my newly modded LP12 with its brand new Clearaudio Virtuoso Wood cartridge and even with no break-in it smokes most other music sources with which I'm familiar! |
I'm looking forward to comments regarding the Marantz SA-11 which you're including in the mix. It's on my short list, but I haven't yet found any objective reviews of it. If it betters the Marantz DV-9500 significantly, I'll be impressed.
Another wrinkle for you guys. For the last several days, I've been using a Musical Fidelity X10V3 buffer stage on my very modest secondary system. I have it now on the output of a Sony NS-775 which is a very pedestrian albeit extremely competent SACD player that is dirt cheap. The X10 has done incredible things to it, very much against my otherwise deep confiction that one must not muck up the signal path with additional active components. It adds a large degree of depth and warmth to the sound while dramatically increasing the soundstage. I'd love to hear a report on how it does on the output of a truely great front end. Thanks.
Peter |
Thank you AVGuru for your thoughtful reply to my questions. On my main system right now, I am using a Denon 2200 stock which I hate. I bought it too hastily on the strength of a brief review in TAS 149. I have yet to try the MF buffer stage on that system, but suspect it will help. However, I think it will be just a bandaid. I am currently very actively looking for a new CD/SACD player. My budget has a cap, I'd say of $4k either new or used nd I'd like to stay as much below that as possible so I can live to play another day. Audio has a relatively low WAF around here. A used DV50 is definitely still on the short list. Another machine I'm considering, and your comments would be welcome is the Underwood-modified Music Hall Maverick player. This runs $2k complete and, on paper it looks good. I think it was 6Moons that had a review of the modded machine and it went over very well. Any thoughts? My personal reference sound is that of my Linn Lp12, Ittok arm and Clearaudio Virtuoso Wood cartridge. Thanks.
Peter |
AVGuru,
Just to be sure I know which Sony you are praising (they have some similar model numbers, I assume you are talking about the SCD-XA9000ES that has a list price of $3000. Is that right? That one has a great review in Stereophile of 12/03, Atkinson I thinkk. I've since read some other reports which highly praise its SACD performance but are not so thrilled about it's Redbook performance. Can you add anything to your description of it; especially with respect to Redbook?
I'm also wondering if you've heard the Linn players, Unidisk 1.1 and/or 2.1. I heard the 2.1 head to head with the Marantz 9500 and your comments re. Marantz seem to be on target. However, The 2.1 is 3X the price. I liked the Marantz pretty well, but the Linn was lots more detailed. I'd love to hear the SA-11 up against the DV-9500 for comparison sake.
Frankly, I'm close to ordering the modded Maverick from Underwood, but, perhaps I should revisit the Sony. All this is making my head hurt...in a good way. |
Reb,
Do you have any sense of how the SA-11 compares with the Marantz DV-9500? What are the filtering options? Is upsampling switchable? Thanks. |
OK, I couldn't take it any longer! It turns out that the Sony 999 with the Modwright Platinum mod is not that much more than the Underwood Maverick I was close to buying. I spoke with Dan this afternoon, a very nice guy, and ordered my modded Sony. I hope to join some of you in Audio Nervana in a couple of weeks.
Peter |
Hi Guys,
I received my ModWright Sony 999 yesterday afternoon after an unfortunate UPS delay. I will not make any full comments just yet as the machine has only been on for about 16 hours and the listening has been very preliminary on a non broken-in machine with non warmed-up tubes. Obviously, there is lots of warm up and experimentation to do. First impressions is that the machine is marvelous. Right out of the box, the level of detail and dimensionality is greater than anything I've heard on my system. I recently heard the Linn 2.1 on a different system, but my subjective notes are that my new Modwright machine has a larger soundstage. I ran a disc on repeat mode overnight and the sound has improved somewhat. There is less congestion. Interstingly, I didn't feel that the sound was congested in the first place. Compared to my unmodified Denon, the difference, even with a cold machine, is night and day. The soundstage extends well beyond the physical edges of the speakers. The lead vocals, for example are front & center with tons of air and bloom. Yes, bloom: I love tubes! Other instruments are arrayed in 3 dimensions on the stage with their sounds being both individually distinguishable while their blend is heard to full effect. I've only listened to Redbook so far, but I'm mighty impressed.
I will give a fuller report after I've had a few days of burn-in on the unit. BTW, with no reflection on any other modder, I have to say that Dan Wright is great to deal with. He was always very responsive, even returning Emails within a few minutes over the holiday weekends.
For reference, the rest of my system consists of an ARC SP-16LS, the Musical Fidelity A3CR amp (100 watts) and B&W Nautilus 803 speakers. Other parts of the system are slated for upgrade, but I seem to have landed on a great front-end at a very reasonable price.
Peter |
My Modwright Sony 999 Review:
Hi All,
I've had the better part of a week now to get my Modwright player warm and toasty as well as somewhat broken-in. I've been playing many discs each day and leaving it on all night in repeat mode to try to get some hours on it. It's changed quite a bit since I first got it. There are a few areas where it is clearly superior to my Linn table and Clearaudio cartridge combo. It's not a direct comparison though. They are very different without one necessarily being better than the other. However, the Modwright is better in several important ways. The soundstage remains huge. It is larger than that with vinyl without smearing the sound elements at all. This is Redbook I'm mainly talking about. SACD ranges from simply more of the same to jaw-dropping magic, depending on the recording.
On the ModWright an ensamble such as the one playing behind Diana Krall on her Girl in the Next Room hybrid SACD is clearly placed next to and behind her in a very definite arrangement. This effect solidified during the break-in process. While the stage is huge, transporting me in my smallish listening room to her venue on the recording, the various human and instrumental voices can be reliably pointed to in space. Moreover, the interactions of voices really strike me as themselves representing distinct purposeful sounds while still allowing me to hear the individual notes within the blend. When Diana sings, or Linda Eder or Michael Feinstein for that matter, I hear the whole voice from my position which seems to be about two rows back. The main voice quality, along with nasal and chest tones, along with pacing and breathing give me the sense of having the artist delivering directly to me what he wants to express. All this time, the other instruments on stage retain their solidity andcontribution to the overall picture.
I've only been once through, at this point, Volume II of Oscar Peterson's remixed SACD series. It is utterly rivotting. You find yourself in a live venue where the trio plays. The plucks of the string bass simply exist in your space off to one side while you clearly and indidivudally hear the hammers in Oscar's piano striking their wires. When the wires are struck, it sets up marvelous resonance in the wood of the piano body which itself drives the next note. On this SACD, the spacial depth is unlike anything I've heard on a home system.You can hear Oscar humming to himself behind the keyboard, you can hear his stool squeak as he turns to make visual contact with his band mates You can hear his nails striking the keys and you can hear snippets of conversation in and around the crowd.
Every disk I"ve played as revealed orders of magnitude more information compared with the best I've ever heard before. The tonal balance is also stunning. I can't imagine wanting to listen to digital sources without tubes in the analog stage ever again. The upper midrange sparkles, but isn't bright. harmonies and overtones go on and on. Bass is extended and articulate. This player does everything right.
The bottom line is that all the effects I've mentioned above come seamlessly together to provide a totally involving and emotional experience.
On the down side, I'm having my suspected weaknesses in the rest of the audio chain made really clear to me. Fortunately, this is a front end I can really work with. I'm going to be needing more moxy in the power amp before too long.
If I get into the position of being part of a shoot out here in the DC area, I"d love to hear some of the other big contenders. For now, at 20% of the price of the Esoteric X01, I'm really hard pressed to worry that the X01 will be a whole lot better. STill if I get the chance I'll be there to hear it. I apologize if I seem a bit too enthusiastic, but this is the most excited I've been about a piece of audio gear in a long long time.
Peter |
The 999 uses a pair of 5687s.
Peter |
1markr, Oh sorry about that. To be honest, I'm not sure what the tubes are. I'm afraid I've disposed of the boxes. Being a blind guy, I can't easily check the actual tube, but I'll have my daughter take a look next time I can get her attention by the stereo. She mostly stays away when I'm listening because she says I play it too loud and she prefers to be in her room listening to her purple boom box. She also hates the "junk" I listen to.
Peter |
Doc Luke
I have a Musical Fidelity X10V3 here which I used on the output of my unmodified Denon 2200 for a while. I also gave it a try between my amp and preamp. While it does do some fairly nice things in the face of an otherwise harsh source, I don't think it measures up to the performance of my modded Sony in either of those configurations. It does give some nice, even desireable roll off and the impression of added air and texture. I found though that when using it after the preamp, LPs would tend to sound dark and compressed compared with keeping the X10 out of the circuit. In that configuration, it strikes me as a somewhat high priced, and mostly high performance, equalizer rather than a way of truely transforming the front end into a tube component. Some may find it amusing to know that I'm currently using it on the output of a Kenwood component receiver for Sirius Satellite Radio where it nicely rounds off the digital edges of that service. It makes for great background music when I'm working.
Peter |
Guido,
How very lucky for me that neither of my children have inherited the disease. How also lucky for me that my wife never had it, not even the slightest trace of it. I think their serendipity explains the existence of the purple boom box in my household. It also explains why I have been removed to a lonely basement room with shelves of LPs and CDs and why I'm permitted to play with glowing vacuum tubes and extravagantly priced electric cords. Now if I can figure out how to defeat the lock on the outside of the door, I may be able to rejoin my kids and their purple piece of audiophile Nervana. |
On a topic more closely related to the original title of this thread, has anyone played with the Mccormack Universal player? It got a weird mixed review in the most recent Stereophile. How does it stack up against the DV50 or any of the modded players?
2. AVguru, I think you once said that you were going to post some extended comments about the Marantz SA-11. Even though I already took the plunge and am extremely happy with my Modwright 999, I am still interested in extending my knowledge base.
Finally, has anyone yet seen/heard the Simaudio Orbiter? Looks interesting and no one seemes neutral on how they feel about Simaudio products.
Peter |
Avguru,
I'll have a look for some comments on AG about the SA-11. I came close to buying one just about the time I found this thread which steered me in another direction. Also, and I'd like your comments if you have any, it was about the time I heard the Marantz 9500 up against the Unidisc 2.1. The 2.1 blew it away, but at more than double the price. So, at that point I was wrestling with the idea of doubling my budget for a player unless I could get closer to the Linn sound at less money. I thought the SA-11 might be the ticket to that. I'll be curious to know how your current audition involving the SA-14V2 goes. Do you have any experience with the Linn 2.1 or 1.1? ...and please, if you get a chance to to a shoot out that involves the Modwright and the X01 I'd love to know the result!
Peter |
Jayctoy
It's largely from your comments that I ordered the Modwright 999. What a great machine! What do you find warm up time to be like with your 9000? Now that my 999 has been playing discs almost non stop for a little over a week, it is ounding truely marvelous.
One problem in my system is that my ARC preamp takes a long time to warm up and settle down. I keep it on all the time, but a few days ago, we had a power outage that lasted about three hours. It took three days or so for the preamp to get back to sounding holographic with the CDP. I'm wondering how much of that was due to the CDP. It tempts me to look at solid state preamps, but it will take a very special one to get me to leave tubes.
As for Dan, I think he appreciates the mentions he's gotten on this thread. I personally feel he could charge double or more for the current Sony mod and it would be worth the money. BTW, did you get the upgraded power cord to connect the outboard power supply with the transport? It's a nice piece of work, but I never had the earlier one so I can't really compare. I'm currently using an Audience cable on the transport, but I have a piece of Cardas Gold Reference I want to play with to see what happens.
Peter |
--Some comments on my analog vs. CD playback
I thought I would gratuitously post some observations I've made on my Modwright Sony 999, now that it is broken in, compared against my analog rig. This is unscientific in every way and includes only one recording that I did a direct synchronized A/B test upon.
The comments I've made on the Modwright player earlier in the thread are still valid.
My analog setup is a Linn LP12 with all the known current mods. It additionally sports a Goldmund platter rather than the standard Linn platter. The arm is a Linn Ittok and the cartridge is a relatively recent Clearaudio Virtuoso Wood MK II. The preamp is an Audio Research SP16 with phono stage. It has about 400 hours on a new set of Electroharmonics "Elite" 12AX7 type tubes.
Interconnects are Audioquest Jaguar for the CD player and Cardas arm wires. Between amp and preamp I'm using Kimber Hero and the speakers, Nautilus 803s are connected to the Musical Fidelity A3CR amp via Nordost Solar Wind cables.
Regarding phono playback, I would identify the built-in phono section of the SP16 as the weakest link in the chain. I think it is generally pretty good, but compared with a true high-end phono stage it may lack some of the dynamics and openness of the best.
Throughout my critical listening to compare, I was constantly surprised at how close the two sources were. I mean, really close. The Linn, with a properly cleaned LP has a very black noise floor. The album I was able to A/B test was Linda Ronstadt's Lush Life on Elektra. I have an original standard LP pressing from circa the time of its release in 1984. My Redbook CD copy is relatively new, but it was apparently produced for CD in 1986. So, not only is it a Redbook CD, but it's apparently produced on first generation equipment for that medium. My comparisons were all with Redbook, not SACD.
Both front ends produced marvelous detail, dynamics and soundstage. There was a consistent difference across almost every type of music having to do with soundstage depth. With the LP12, the lead vocals were focused solidly between the speakers at about the plane of the speaker fronts. All vocals and instruments had plenty of air and bloom. The Ronstadt album was produced with the use of an Aphex Aural Exciter so that room acoustics could apparently be synthesized where acceptable ones did not otherwise exist during the recording. Actually, I know next to nothing about the Aphex unit, but I'm assuming this is the purpose. With the LP, insttruments remained tightly organized around the leads and extended back in space nicely. Microdynamics were good and did not lend themselves to any subjective critisism. Notes in the upper midrange had a slight tendency to sound a bit blunted on their leading edges as though not able to fully open up as they attacked. The upside of this is that the effect was one of mellow richness. Overall, the impression of listening through the LP12 was one of intamacy: As though I were hearing the music in a smaller venue such as a nightclub.
I was able to play both sources separately and synchronized within a second or two and could switch back and forth relatively quickly between the Linn and the Modwright. As I said, the two sources had many more similarities than differences. The most noteable difference was in the perspective. The Modwright gave me the sense of listening in a much larger theater with the lead singer out in front and spotlighted. The vocals had uncanny clarity. The soundstage extended a bit further back with each instrument existing in its own space. The roundness of attacks, especially with piano and brass instruments was replaced by a laserlike clarity. This is not to say it was clinical. To the contrary, each note carried warmth and bloom but still held its own identity even as the overtones blended and expanded. What one would hear as the characteristic glare associated with Redbook sound was handled by the Modwright in a very euphonic way. It emerged as a brilliant shine without a headache-producing glare. This effect worked decidedly to the Modwright's advantage when reproducing the sound of brass. I especially noticed it on trombone parts.
The other thing handled decidedly better by the Modwright were the dynamics of Linda's voice. As her volume would build and peak, the LP would begin to exhibit some thinness. This could be due, in part, to the fact that it is a twenty-year-old LP which has been played several dozen times. Still, while the tone of the note remained clear, it would lose body. Maybe this has to do with arm resonance. My knowledge of the physics associated with analog playback is limited. This is where the contrast and, I'm afraid, superiority of the Modwright was really illustrated. On the CD version, as the notes would build, so would their body. They would get tangibly more powerful as she expelled more air. In contrast, the notes would weaken slightly when played through the phono equipment.
On this album, side 2, the cut "Falling in Love Again" begins with a melody produced, I assume, with vibes. It's a glowing bell-like solo which sets the mood for the song. On the LP version, it is intriguing, musical, and engrossing. From the Modwright, it is absolutely stunning! It reaches out and grabs me as each note rings out solidly. Each note decays while its overtones are marvelously experienced. Again, one has the impression of a lead performer being spotlighted on a large stage.
So which is better? If I could choose only one, it would have to be the CD player. Fortunately, I don't have to choose only one. The analog experience is still special and to me, more intimate. What it lacks in fireworks, it compensates for in rich melodic, relaxed sound reproduction. I have to say that for me, the Modwright gives a more involving sound. I'm a more active listener, hearing elements of music reproduction that I am not accustomed to. Let me restate and emphasize that the two sources were quite similar. During the Ronstadt playback, I would sometimes lose track of which source I had selected and have to wait for a telling bit of acoustics to get it straight. I have to admit that prior to this player, I'd never taken digital sources all that seriously so some of my enthusiasm is undoubtedly due to novelty. I'm still very amused/gratified that I can repeat tracks, restart the disk or change the volume without getting off my butt. I'm finally really enjoying the convenience of CD now that I can get them to sound like music! |
