New Marantz SA11S2?


Can someone please describe the new Marantz SA11S2 sound for me? In general terms, is it smooth, detailed, dynamic, soft, transparent, slightly veiled, impactful bass, slightly rounded bass, great treble extension or slightly rolled? Warm robust midrange, lean mids, fairly neutral to dry?

Thank you
rc5al
The Pearl and the SA11 S2 are very close, the Sa11 2 I think is at least as good, I could easily live with either player.
after owning a arc cd3 mkll and a meridian go8,,my vote goes to the 11s2 which i now own,,,ater break in a good 3-400 hrs the sacd is superb,cd is excellent much detail smooth sound u can listen for hours with no fatigue,,this is a keeper ,,mated with a sm11s1 amp sc11s1 preamp
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.