I own this player. The build quality is top rate. It is absolutely gorgeous (pictures don't do it justice). The all metal transport has to be one of the best transports made today. I have compared it, as a transport, to about 5 other units, and it was shocking to hear how much better it is.
As a total player, it is not what one well known reviewer says. It is dynamic, has excellent bass. The midrange, including vocals, is present, but not forward. The sound stage is wide with adequate depth. The treble is detailed, but not hyper-detailed, which apparently that reviewer likes. It is a good balance, because it seems to make less good recordings sound better than razor-sharp detailed players do. Yet, stellar recordings sound stellar.
I am in the process of writing a review on it, and I have compared it to the Limited Edition Pearl player. I won't go into detail here, but, again, the same reviewer would have you think there is a big difference between the players. Frankly, the difference is rather small, and not always in favor of the Pearl. Considering that the Pearl does not have the metal transport, is unbalanced only, and lacks a coaxial digital out, the SA11-S2 would be my first choice. More about these players later. |
Mr. Tennis, I must say your comments are far from the reality I and others hear from the SA11. The unit has bloom, has warmth, and is hardly on the thin side. For those with a listening preference to a bloated, overly warm, highly colored sound, such a view might be theirs. Perhaps your system is
Even Michael Fremer, whom I disagree with, said the SA11 had warmth, had body.
In regards to the input discussion above, why would anyone want a digital input on this player? The transport is among the best sounding made, so why would you want to use the unit without the transport?
The only thing I could see one might want are the two digital outputs (to run a DAC) that the unit already has. |
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. |
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. |
I believe the Bent and VTL both roll off the high end, so you need a brighter player. I never owned Magnepans or Quads ES (electrostats). Although ES are very detailed and open, I believe their sound beams, so you need to be in a sweet spot, and also, they roll off the upper top.
Perhaps this is simply a system matching and taste issue. People often forget how important it is that components compliment the particular characteristics of the system.
You can change an interconnect and almost totally change the sound of the whole system, for example. |
4musica, I'm sure you enjoy the fine sound from the Ayre, but do you like having paid $6,000 for a cheap, flimsy drive that they provide? A friend has one, and I couldn't believe using a $25 transport in a $6,000 machine. Things like that I find totally unforgiveable and so typical of the greed the designers who think they are so special they can make the maximum money with cutting corners. It is to Marantz' credit that they provide a top notch transport. You should use the Marantz as a transport connected to the Ayre, and that should open your eyes. |
I thought I would add my revised thoughts here on these pieces. In the end, I was happy to keep my SA11S2. The transport is clearly superior to the Xyron transport in the Pearl, and I like having the balanced design of the SA11. The Pearl is single-ended, does not have coaxial, only Toslink (not important to me, but nice to have for future comparisons with DACs). The Pearl does not have the bass of the SA11, nor the dynamics, though it is a matter of degree and is still quite decent.
Don't be influenced by the statements of the reviewer who says the SA11. Its high end is not rolled off. It is a beautiful high end that deftly walks the tightrope of providing definition, but at the same time not being analytical, bright and overdefined. Nor is its sound 'boring.' I would describe it as having a naturally exciting sound that doesn't go over the top. To me, that's what someone looking for a well-balanced, natural sound is seeking. Listen to one. |
It was interesting to read Fremer's review of the new $6500 Cary player. I read between the lines, and since I am familiar with all his reviews on the Carys, the Marantzs, etc., and don't agree with his assessment of the SA11, it appears he is making similar criticisms of the new Cary. Just a different twist as to how he chooses his words, but the same criticisms are there, just sugar-coated and presented in a milder fashion. It makes one wonder why one company seems treated differently than another. A reader needs to keep a perspective that reviewers are not the gods they think they are, or their readers believe they are. |
