Marantz cd17
La serie Prestige col famoso CD17:
By What HiFi*****:Straordinario,ostenta confidenza ed ha un prezzo più che contenuto considerate le sue capacità.
CD17:By HiFi Choice
Take a peek into a higher price bracket-say, £800 and above-and products like the Marantz CD-17 MKII M offer firm and clear proof that the CD player is alive and well.
Get it into action and the player positively bristles with musical energy.
An effortless all-rounder, this Marantz also makes light work of the spacious sonics and gritty guitars.
The CD-17 MKII M is more affordable than most of its rivals which makes it, frankly, something of a bargain.
Clarity, detail, realism and dynamics-these are the qualities that make this Marantz a musical all-rounder. The fact is, whatever you throw at this player it hardly puts a foot wrong.
CD17 :By What HiFi?
Another fine Marantz player, which boasts powerful bass, musicality and spine-tingling ability.
Its the style of the Marantz that grabs you, that sleek silver finish doing it no harm whatsoever. For one of the less-expensive machines in this group, the Marantz certainly looks all the money. It sounds it too: while the vivid and powerful presentation will come as something of a surprise to those who like their music rich and lush, theres no lack of bass power.
This is a fine player for sensible money, and a major step up from the quality machines on offer in the £400-£600 arena.
Superb build quality, plenty of style and a fine sound.
Ken Ishiwata's magic wand touches the CD17By Greg Fleming
April 2002
Marantz CD17mk2 KI compact disc player. $3999.
The CD-17mk2 KI represents the mid-point of Marantzs serious, high-end CD players a line which culminates in the statement ($7,000+) CD 7.
Marantz designer and all round guru Ken Ishiwata, long a legend in audio circles, has tweaked this model (thus the KI signature) paying special attention to the analogue output stage, the power supply quality and vibration resistance thus adding almost $1,000 to the standard CD-17 mk2.
Having had little experience with Marantz gear I eagerly set up the CD 17mk2KI and popped in a newly bought CD Bob Beldens Black Dahlia, a jazz-based orchestral suite which, although wonderfully recorded, asks a lot of playback equipment.
Straight out of the box like this the Marantz sounded more than okay exhibiting an almost valve-like smoothness in the top end, whilst the midrange dug out instrumental and musical character which my reference player (a 24bit Musical Fidelity X-Ray - no slouch itself) couldnt equal.
If it sounded a tad too bright with cymbals especially in danger of sounding isolated and splashy I put this down to the lack of a decent break in. I then left the player on repeat for 48 hours.
The first thing one notices about this player is its weight almost 8kg and for those of you who dont know, weight in audio products is (usually) a good sign, indicating superior build and componentry.
The attractive champagne finish, easily read track and time signals and transport tray were also well designed and laid out the CD tray equipped with four rubber stoppers that helped centre the CD in place. Furthermore the CD tray unlike many even in this price bracket was solid and stable and evoked transport confidence.
The remote is decidedly handsome and possesses all the regular CD features like 30 track programming, shuffle, repeat, track numbers etc as well as having a digital volume control (do make certain this is up full though for quality listening).
Altogether build quality, functions and aesthetics scored high marks only the lack of HDCD decoding disappointed these discs can of course be played but the advantage of HDCD wont be apparent and one would have thought that a player of this calibre would have addressed this issue.
Two days later and the Marantz had settled down considerably the tendency towards edginess was diminished and both depth and transparency were improved although it was clear that the player naturally tended towards the hot side of things.
It was lively and detailed where other players settled for musical coherence and smoothness; calling it bright whilst not inaccurate was too facile a judgement.
The Marantz for example captured the blattiness of Tim Hagans trumpet solos for example on The Black Dahlia and having spent a dispirited year learning the instrument in my teens I know how bright and piercing the instrument sounds in real life and the Marantz caught it perfectly.
Bass was supple and confident yet the most attractive aspect of the Marantzs performance was its retrieval of atmosphere and detail. I heard the keys of saxophone pads opening and closing, the breathing of Reggie Workman (my favourite jazz bass player) as he wandered up the neck for one of his solos on Andrew Cyrilles superb My Friend Louis album of 1990 to cite just two examples.
Yet the Marantz kept its sense of musicality too, so it wasnt just a case of accuracy without context. I liken it to the use of either a valve amplifier or a CD player with a valve-output stage although the Marantz hasnt a valve in it nor did my amplification the resulting sound has that kind of you are there quality tubes seem to naturally impart.
Of course too lush and everything is over-sweetened and at times the Marantz walked a thin-line in this regard. A lot will depend on your accompanying equipment and personal listening tastes.
Just quietly I fell hard at first for the CD17mk2KI and Ill miss it when it goes (and if the measure of a good CD Player is the amount of time spent spinning CDs the Marantz gets an A++). For some its lushness might just be too much of a good thing, and a home audition is certainly recommended before buying. Yet partnered sympathetically the players attention to detail and all round musicality can make magnificent music.
CD17 By TNT
Quando verso la metà degli anni '70 decisi di acquistare un amplificatore Marantz, stimolato anche dal prestigio di cui godeva tale marchio, mai avrei immaginato che stavo portandomi in casa quello che poi si sarebbe rivelato uno degli apparecchi più mal suonanti che, ad oggi, abbia mai ascoltato. Si trattava del modello 1070 e all'epoca la Marantz mi sembra fosse di proprietà della Superscope. L'amplificatore, in unione con le Visonik David 6000, clippava in maniera indegna, facendo accendere i LED di sovraccarico delle David continuamente. Il passaggio ad un Pioneer 8800, mi risollevò da una situazione audiofila deprimente, però rimasi deluso e completamente sfiduciato nei confronti del marchio Marantz.Ripensandoci ora, chissà, forse il problema affliggeva solamente l'esemplare che avevo acquistato, ma all'epoca generalizzai, e di Marantz (anche perchè il sintonizzatore, dello stesso periodo e linea di appartenenza, nonostante fosse dotato di antenna esterna, risultava pressochè inutilizzabile: non riusciva a *beccare* una stazione radio in modo decente, mentre i vari Grundig o Pioneer di costo notevolmente inferiore, se la cavavano egregiamente anche con un pezzaccio di filo attaccato alla presa dell'antenna!) non ne volli più sentir parlare.
Da allora molte cose sono cambiate: come tutti sanno, acquistata dalla Philips, la Marantz ha successivamente tentato (con successo!) di risalire la china, ed ha iniziato a produrre apparecchi di estremo interesse divenuti, in alcuni casi, veri riferimenti nei loro segmenti di mercato.
L'impianto utilizzato
Il CD 17 e' stato provato con: diffusori Spendor SP2/2, Sonus Faber Concertino, Suono Riferimento.Amplificatori Audioanalyse PA60 e un integrato Orelle 100.Confrontato con i lettori CD Orelle CD-100, Yamaha CDX-1030.Cavi di segnale Monster Cable Interlink CD, Interlink 300 e Esoteric Audio CD. Cavi di potenza Esoteric Audio Premier, Supra 2.5. Stabilizzatore per CD Monster Cable Discus+, CD di prova trattati al bordo esterno con pennarello nero, punte coniche sotto i piedini originali del Marantz e piedini in grafite della ART sotto le punte coniche. Un paio di tappetini per il mouse (pesanti...) sopra il coperchio del CD 17.
La costruzione
Sia nero che satinato (la foto si riferisce alla lussuosa versione Gold), il Marantz CD 17 si presenta con una veste estetica tutto sommato piacevole. La sua linea sottile ne consente l'inserimento anche in spazi non particolarmente capienti in altezza, e grazie a ciò anche gli interventi di ottimizzazione più comuni risultano agevolati: parlo dell'adozione di punte coniche, basette di vario genere, pesi smorzanti sul coperchio, ecc. (a proposito degli interventi di ottimizzazione avrei qualcosa da dire, ma ne parlo dopo...).La costruzione appare piuttosto robusta (a parte il cassettino scorrevole) e manca il famigerato coperchio conformato ad U (meno male...). Tutto questo dovrebbe garantire una certa insensibilità alle vibrazioni esterne.La meccanica utilizzata e' la CDM-12.3, la conversione e' invece basata su convertitori Bitstream di tipo DAC7.
I comandi
Pochi quelli sul frontale dell'apparecchio (Play, Stop, Pause, Skip, Open/Close, Power), pochi quelli sul pannello posteriore (uscite sbilanciate, analogica e digitale, bus di interconnessione con altre apparecchiature Marantz), con il cordone di alimentazione di tipo fisso.
Il telecomando, piuttosto funzionale, dispone, a mio avviso, di un angolo di operatività troppo limitato, forse a causa del sensore *annegato* nel display, del quale, tra l'altro, e' possibile variare l'intensità luminosa. Altri apparecchi sanno fare meglio. Stranamente, per un apparecchio con dichiarate ambizioni Audiophile, e' possibile variare il livello delle uscite analogiche. L'impostazione del volume (e le altre), però, non viene mantenuta qualora si spenga l'apparecchio; se l'intenzione era quella di consentirne l'utilizzo direttamente con finali di potenza, occhio, pertanto, alla successiva accensione del sistema!Manca, invece, l'uscita cuffia, che qualcuno si ostina a considerare deleteria per il suono dell'apparecchio, ma, per gli ascolti notturni, risulta veramente comoda (e poi, diciamo la verità, quanti di noi affrontano un ascolto in cuffia con spirito critico e audiofilo?).Non particolarmente gradevole il contatto *fisico* con i comandi e, soprattutto, con il cassettino porta CD, che appare piuttosto fragile e plasticoso.
Il suono
Davvero non capisco perchè, da parte dei costruttori di lettori digitali (non tutti, per la verità), ci si ostini ad ignorare i problemi propri del CD nella progettazione e costruzione delle meccaniche di trasporto.Tutti dicono un gran bene della CDM-12.3, ed allora qualcuno mi spieghi il motivo dei notevoli miglioramenti sonori che derivano dall'uso, in unione con la stessa, di un comune stabilizzatore per CD!Diciamo la verità, il CD e' pieno di problemi (vi rimando all'articolo su Come ottimizzare il suono del CD player), e non basta farlo semplicemente girare per poi tentare di estrarne il maggior numero di informazioni.Bisogna stabilizzarlo, smorzarne le risonanze, ecc. Forse la progettazione e la realizzazione di una siffatta meccanica comporterebbe un eccessivo aumento dei costi di produzione (però, ad esempio, Teac e CAL lo fanno, per non parlare di Pioneer), mentre l'adozione di una meccanica addirittura derivata dall'uso computeristico, senz'altro realizza notevoli economie di scala. Ed in tal caso, per l'utente finale, potrebbe effettivamente convenire l'acquisto di uno stabilizzatore a parte. Ma allora perchè non fornirne uno in dotazione? Ad ogni modo, per la prova ne ho utilizzato uno (Discus+ della Monster Cable), poichè, visti i miglioramenti che apporta sul CD 17 in termini di equilibrio tonale, profondità e stabilità dell'immagine virtuale, ritengo DOVEROSO adottarlo, perlomeno per rispetto nei confronti del resto dell'apparecchio.
Le caratteristiche di questa macchina possono riassumersi in... un bel suono! Proprio così, devo confessare che ogni volta che inizio un ascolto con spirito critico, cercando di analizzarne i parametri, immancabilmente (complice anche il telecomando che, dal mio punto di ascolto, non vuol proprio saperne di funzionare...) finisco per godermi solo la musica. Ascoltatelo, se potete! Nelle corrette condizioni di operatività (leggi sopra), sfodera performance musicali veramente eccellenti.Una notevole ariosità, ottenuta senza sbilanciamenti tonali verso il medio acuto, che, anzi, risulta estremamente dolce ancorchè definito. La gamma media e' trasparente e bella, mai appesantita dall'azione del registro medio-basso, che risulta notevolmente articolato e di adeguato spessore.I bassi, poi, ci sono tutti, con una certa sensazione di morbidezza, anche se sempre controllati e mai slabbrati. Devo confessare che, con questa macchina, ho riscoperto diversi CD che, con altri apparecchi, tendevo ad evitare, in quanto piuttosto *fastidiosi*. Non so esattamente come, ma il CD 17 riesce non solo a perdonare quelle incisioni che non appaiono propriamente perfette, ma anche a tirarne fuori diverse informazioni e darne una interpretazione piuttosto interessante, forse anche per merito di una notevole capacità in termini di ricreazione di una immagine virtuale ampia e profonda, con una dislocazione nello spazio degli strumenti molto bene identificabile, con parecchia aria intorno, anche se non *radiografati*. Ottima la dinamica: non ad effetto, ma molto naturale.
Conclusioni
Ad un prezzo di circa 2.500.000 lire (versione nera), ci si può portare a casa uno dei lettori CD integrati più musicali che abbia mai ascoltato (chissà per quanto tempo ancora, visti i progressi continui del digitale...), che, per le caratteristiche sonore dimostrate (con lo stabilizzatore, mi raccomando, aumentate pertanto il prezzo di listino di un centinaio di biglietti da mille), non pone particolari problemi di interfacciabilità con altre apparecchiature.
Sarei proprio curioso di provare la versione KIS (3.700.000 lire di listino), per cercare di capire dove e quanto possa essere migliorato un prodotto di per se' già eccellente.Alla luce di quanto emerso alla prova di ascolto, ritengo veramente un peccato che, ad elettroniche dotate di un potenziale tanto elevato, non vengano poi affiancate meccaniche di lettura appositamente progettate e realizzate per uso audio.E, per favore, non venitemi a raccontare che i progettisti Marantz non rilevano differenze all'ascolto. Come diceva la pubblicità? *Prima ascoltare, poi...*.
Copyright © 1997 Stefano Monteferri
DVD-SACD
By Audiogon:
Marantz DV-8400 & SA-14 vs. Philips SACD-1000 & 963 vs. Sony 9000es vs. Denon 2900As you can tell, Im a SACD-aholic. I couldnt imagine living without SACD playback in my system and cant believe I thought myself to be an audiophile before being introduced to it. As good as SACD is, I have only 50 or so discs, yet countless hundred redbook cds so although I want the magic of sacd playback I absolutely need good CD playback. In this review I have focused mainly on the redbook playback of the machines, as SACD playback Ive found to have less variability between machines, though in every case I should not that I found the character of each players redbook playback to transfer to the SACD side as well to a lesser degree, especially the flaws. For example, the 963s poor bass on redbook transferred to the SACD side while being notably open on both formats, the 9000es had a grainy top-end and one-note-bass on both formats, the SACD1000 had prominent bass on both sides, etc.. Ill add an addendum to the review later when I finish playing with the 5900 if anyones interested, which my dealer will let me demo in home for a couple weeks. Every machine had at least 300hrs of burn-in for each format, all but the 8400 had much, much more, and each where tweaked with various isolation devices and cables, each optimized with their various on-screen settings and filters for pure audio reproduction, and I even tried the un-intuitive and less popular settings for giggles. I put at least 3 solid weeks of listening in on each machine. I also re-optimized speaker positions as much as possible with each source, which was a PITA with 125lb speakers on spikes, for sure, but only fair, especially wrt getting the best soundstage, tonal balance due to room interactions and the preferred front row seat. With no further ado, the very lengthy review!PHILIPS SACD-1000: The redbook was, in a word, blah. The most un-involving sound Ive heard in my home. Lifeless, lacking in resolution, the top-end was objectionably soft whereas the bass was prominent, very strong with lots of slam and a fairly textured, yet its the only thing the player nearly gets right, which makes the presentation unbalanced and distracting. I just couldnt sit and listen to this players haze and dullness on redbook; I would either pick up a book or turn on the tv for background diversion after a few minutes, it was that boring. The 963 is more detailed, more open, with more air, more sparkle and top end extension, though the 1000 offers fuller, more round, simply better bottom 3 octaves. The SACD performance was much better however; it was about 80% of what the SA14 had with the same general tonality, just didnt image as well, not as extended or pretty up top, though nearly as smooth, rich and solid sounding, fairly analog sounding overall, though comparable perhaps to only an entry level TT. This player was very sensitive to isolation and the slow roll filter was clearly superior, just like on the SA14 wrt the improvements heard, with more extension, air and ease. Build quality was so-so. Horrible case and front plate, flimsy and noisy tray, not at all looking like a $2K player from the outside. No PCM out is a huge setback for this player, it needs an external dac in the worst way. Even an MSB Nelson would be a huge step-up IMO, let alone a Musical Fidelity A3-24 or Bel Canto dac (Ive owned all of these too, among others, and quite a few CD-only players for reference).Final Grade: Id give the machine a C- on redbook, a B on SACD. I had great hopes for this player, expecting it to sound more like the SA14 given some shared internals, and was greatly let down, so take that into account in my review.PHILIPS 963: I didnt have much hope at all for this machine and was impressed with the sound it offered at an insanely low cost, Id suggest it for newbies in an instant, yet its nowhere near reference caliber. First off I thought the player sounded best the upsampling off, a sentiment shared by more then a few people I spoke with that had highly resolving systems that fell for this players hype. Upsampling sounded gimmicky, very artificial, clearly adding things to the music/sound that wasnt actually there, in some ways euphonic sounding, if you will, though on the plus side upsampling did open up the soundstage significantly and lower the noise floor. However, I feel the stage is an artificial stereophonic artifact, its something not heard in real life, and as neat as it is to hear its a characteristic I dont value too much in hi-fi playback, just so youre aware of my biases here. Redbook wasnt objectionable overall, easy to listen to, just nothing special in the grand scheme of things. For the $300 I paid for it I suppose its a great value, great entry level player, but not at home in the $10K setup auditioned in. My main gripe with this player was, as my friend who also tried the player so eloquently put it, it has no nuts! Very weak bass, it sounded bashful and apologetic down low, to get anthropomorphic (sorry!). Bass was hollow, lacked slam, and was rolled off. Bass is important to me, especially given my musical tastes. Bass is the rhythmic driving force of the music, its what draws a person into the performance, making a visceral connection and makes the sound more believable, less reproduced, and these things the 963 lacked, which made it hard to appreciate the player. Next to the SA14 it lacked ambiant and inner detail, musicality and natural warmth and richness, which are not things one wants to do without when they have so much invested in a stereo, yet it was as good or better in these regards next to the Sony. SACD playback was pretty good, very open and smooth. Also worth note, the build quality is dismal on this player, cheap inside and out, the worst of the lot. [yes, before you ask, I used the right RCA outputs and settings!]Final Grade: I almost want to fail both Philips players for the Tick-Tick-Tick-Tick noise audible at the listening position! This is unacceptable! Why some folks compliment this transport completely escapes me! However, ignoring the built-in ticking-time-bomb feature of the Philips players, another C on redbook, a B/B+ on SA-CD. Though the lack of bass also transferred to the DSD side it was more open and articulate with more ambient detail then the SACD1000, also a character on redbook it excelled in, hence the slightly higher score, though the 1000 killed it from 160hz down on SACD.SONY 9000ES:Typical for a flagship Sony product, its ruthless on lesser recordings, easy to listen to with great recordings, quite a mixed bag overall. Its an absolutely killer transport for an external dac, better then the old Theta Basic/PS Audio transports, so its value is high. Mating this player with a good, though not necessarily expensive dac I feel to be a great way to go and would suggest this to many that have a great dac and want to try SACD, where one will have cd and sacd playback with what Im told is great video to boot. On Redbook, the tonal balance was good, fair PRAT, imaging was good between speakers but lacked depth and solidarity. On the downside it had very loose, one-note type bass next to the Marantz machines, it had grainy though well extended highs, it was, on all but stunning recordings, slightly lean in the midrange, overall slightly fatiguing with long listening sessions, not very musical and rarely engaging. Its very dependent on quality power. Its a mixed bag for me, I was glad to see it go yet didnt mind it sharing shelf space when it was here and playing well recorded music. I dont want to give this one a grade, Ill take a W on this one ?DENON 2900:BM sucks. Youll spend hours online trying to figure out how to get low bass out of this player, and once you get it youll find it wasnt worth the hassle! It had a closed-in and uninviting sound, nowhere near as relaxed as the Marantz or 963, thin down low, unfocused stage, especially up top. The Marantz 8400 eats it alive, especially in terms of musicality and soundstaging. It felt it did a less then stellar job with SACD, overall perhaps the worst of the bunch aside from the 9000es and 47ai (if memory serves), though still sounding better then 44.1. It had limited dynamic range on SA-CD next to the 8400, not nearly the air and spaciousness, nor as smooth up top. It sounded more extended with more sparkle but after more listening Id be comfortable saying the top-end is ragged and diffuse, giving the impression of extension where, though in a way that the recording doesnt offer, maybe overemphasis in a small range. Its not very transparent, you cant see into the recording like you can with the Marantz players, it simply lacks presence and naturalness of lifelike music. It also sounded dull around 5K hZ, the complete opposite flaw seen in the DV8400, so overall completely different sounding. Its easy to listen to, good for the price, just not as good as the 8400 by any standard. I should admit that Denon products have never impressed me for music next to comparably priced and modern products from Marantz and other niche audiophile companies, this player being no exception. Im going to demo the 5900 after all the buzz, but after the 2900 I wont hold my breath on audio playback fidelity. As much as I pick it apart I would suggest it over the Sony or Philips SACD1000 given the similar $600-700 going rate, but a system/personal taste tossup with the Philips 963 (assuming you have a sub I might give the nod to the 963), and would suggest the more expensive Marantz players over the Denon without hesitation. BTW, sacd playback is much louder then cd playback, so be sure to adjust your levels if you demo this player, it makes a huge difference, makes the sacd playback rather uninspiring and lifeless then first believed, its actually a bit analytical and clinical like the redbook side (house sound?), this next to any other sacd player, yet still has an edge over most PCM machines when spinning SACDs. I must note that I compared this one critically to the 8400 and sa14, so may be unfair in the critique given the price difference, yet Ive not seen any comparisons of this machine next to better or other new machines so thought it might be worth comparing, and I can only offer comparisons to the Philips players and Sonys by memory, which I hate to do, so take that into account.Grade: C+ redbook, B SACDMARANTZ DV-8400:In short, for anyone willing to spend up to the $1100 or some odd dollars for such a machine, its the only DVD based machine that Id recommend to anyone into music, well worth the dollar difference over the competition. As to its virtues, it offered a stunningly deep soundstage with more air around instruments then any machine Ive had in home, an area where it even eclipsed the SA-14, having openness and spaciousness akin to the Musical Fidelity A3-24 dac, a dac which I enjoyed immensely with a Theta transport but ultimately sold in favor of the SA-14 some time ago. The hi-fi freaks out there will love this players imaging abilities. Its bass was second only to the SA-14, it trounced all over the other DVD based machines, being deeper, tighter and more articulate with more texture then the competition. It has great rhythmic drive, very toe tapping and musical, its bass articulation and imaging capabilities have to be part of its stunning quietness, in turn its dynamic range, which on paper in the spec sheet is remarkable and apparently not exaggerated. Its does a good job with ambiance and low level detail, fabulous reverberation information to cue in on hall size and shape, better then any other dvd player by a mile, all of which shocked me as the other players completely missed these things, keeping them as strictly good mid-fi components in my book. Again, this is all relative to my reference and preference.The 8400 is a bit laid back however, just a little though (way laid-back before broken-in, so be patient!), so make sure your system isn't too laid back to start with if you decide to give it a try. I should not that my amp is very aggressive and forward, and it doesnt need to be said that system matching and synergy is always key, ymmv, etc. That said its still the only dvd based sacd player that I would personally recommend, the other dvd players have very obvious flaws or shortcomings that I myself could not live with. It has some other faults worth mentioning in the hi-fi context as well, though not faults next to the other dvd players, only faults in the absolute sense next to more expensive gear. It images are flat and, next to the SA14, hollow. It lacks the midrange richness and warmth and topend sweetness of the SA14 and a few other $3K+ players/dacs+transports Ive had. Main fault next to the other sacd/dvd machines to my ears is a soft topend, being not as extended as the 963 or especially the sa14, yet it was smoother then the Philips and Sony machines while not as crisp, clear and smooth as the SA14 (which itself some folks find soft but Id call just right in my system). Its slightly bright (around 5K Id say), and that mixed with the slightly recessed midrange make for a notable problem compared to reference quality cd players, but its a flaw easier to live with then those had in the other machines, at least for me, but others will object to this Im sure. Also, Its not an analog-like sounding player or tube-ish; its unmistakable as digital, granted its good digital, yet still has the digital edge and feel, as do all the dvd players, yet it doesnt sound like it has a dvd player built in with the associated grundge that the other players carry as baggage, notably their high noise floor. I respect its redbook, but dont love it, just as I respect Wilson speakers and the 777es, among many other products, but dont love them. Ive picked this player apart more thoroughly then any other, only because the lack of review information available (as noted by getting a ton of emails about this player, which prompted me to write this review), as all the other machines have been thoroughly both trashed and praised. I didnt wish to take the time to write what others have already said, yet still wished to give some the essence of each machine as I hear it, identifying difference and similarities for others that may be familiar with another mentioned machine.Grade: B+ for redbook, B+ for SACD.MARANTZ SA-14:Yes, its an old player but its one that was neglected in the audio press and didnt get the credit or attention it deserves! As good as the 8400 is, and it's very good for a dvd based player, I truly love the sound of the SA14. It's the most analog and natural sounding piece of gear I've ever heard, it fits my system and musical tastes perfectly. Ive taken to finding the perfect piece of gear with the same type of approach for finding a perfect women; neither exist, there is no perfect woman or piece of gear, but if you look hard enough, gain enough experience and make enough mistakes you can find the woman, and system, that is perfect for you, which is what really matters. The sa14 isnt perfect, its perhaps not the best at any one aspect, but its perfect to me and its flaws I can ignore or deal with elsewhere in the system/room.None of the dvd players except the 8400 had an edge on the SA14 in any way, not even close on cd, though sacd playback was more competitive. The 8400 has a couple slight edges stereophonically if you sit and really listen; you can hear a marginally better soundstage depth with clearly more air around performers, it's quieter too, yet the SA14 has much rounder and richer images, better top end extension and clarity, overall more ease, and again, it sounds like a very good turntable, very analog, smoooooth yet detailed, no offensive digital fingerprints, and that's on the CD side, which was shockingly close to its SACD playback! I felt it bettered the MF a3-24 dac, Bel Canto dac, Sony scd777 and Jolid JD100 on redbook overall, just to name a few other popular players. It has some flaws that hi-fi freaks can point out next to other stupidly expensive gear (bit of midrange fog, doesnt sparkle up top as much as some, and some feel the bass too prominent, though thats mainly a personal taste issue), but when it comes to hearing the music, and more importantly feeling the music, the SA14 makes an emotional connection unlike any other Ive ever heard, even more so then the 777 Sony on both formats, it makes the music a living, breathing entity. It not euphonic, not in the least, it's just natural to my ears. Listening through (rather then to) this player is an experience similar to cruising in my 68 GTO convertible, to slipping on a favorite pair of old jeans and a t-shirt to watch a Lakers game in the bar with old friends, eating a favorite food with a beautiful woman while listening to live music in a cozy club. It just feels right, it feels natural, its thoroughly enjoyable and it connects me with the rest of the world while letting all cares and troubles behind. The player is completely believable, in two words, natural and musical.The Sharp tray used on this piece is an absolute gem. Very smooth operating, dead silent, overbuilt to say the least. I had it in my hand; it has to weigh a solid 5lbs! (the Philips trays can be measured in ounces, construction cost in pesos). The Marantz/sharp tray is very well built, great parts used all around, which no doubt contributes to the sound in a big way. The build quality, inside and out, is quite good, no op amps, all discrete, great dacs! There is room for improvements inside, of course, and surely its a great platform for upgrades. Why start with garbage inside when you can start with a solid player like this I keep asking myself! When the ver2 hits the streets Ill give it a listen, but for the price difference I think sending the ver1 off for professional mods will be the best option at the $2K price difference that will be a factor! Then again, Im only curious to hear other components and Im not feeling any urge to change this player any time soon, definitely a keeper in my system, with my musical tastes (diverse and biased towards the esoteric, as you see below), yet I ramble, so will shut up!Grade: A- for redbook, A for SA-CD.
elevato rapporto qualita'/prezzo: 
Questo funziona bene! low cost!
