SACD Players Under $2000 With Best Redbook Sound

They might sound the same to you, and maybe even to me. But that simply does not equate to "digital is digital." For one thing, some ears are more discerning than others, as are some speakers and amps. As far as CD-rs: Personally, I buy whatever CD-Rs are on sale that week, but I have noticed some differences, particularly with regard to compatibility with my burner and my CD player's ability to play some brands. the el cheapo generics seem to skip more, and are probably using a lot more error correction. I believe this could subtly degrade sound, as it involves an interpolation, ie, best guess, as opposed to correctly reading the actual pits and bits on the media.

 

The Bryston units sound good but are dedicated Redbook so no SACD capability and OP's budget means used and OOP for the Bryston. He won't be getting the current unit for sub-2K $. I'm no fan of Arcam based on ownership experiences but maybe off-shoring their production allowed them to actually improve their build & reliability. It was no hell when they were manufacturing in the UK.

I've heard some recent TEAC spinners that would check off the boxes so that might be a consideration for the OP.

D.D.

 

I have read that Marantz players seem to be prone to the skipping problem, unrelated to the cleanliness of the lens. My own experience is that a brand new 8005 started skipping after two weeks of use and had to be returned.

If the OP is not afraid of used I would second the 5400es, which can be had for about 12-1500 used. In my system it clearly did better than the Marantz on RBCD. On an older machine you might have to plan for a laser assembly replacement at some point, but otherwise they are very reliable.

You can also look for deals on older higher end players such as Esoteric.

John K.

 

If they sound the same to you and me, then nothing else matters. There's no point in discussing audio myths that don't exist or you can't even hear.

 

I have an Arcam SACD CD37.
Bought it new over 6 years ago with no problems.
CD (and SACD) sound wonderful.
Cost around $1700

 

You made me laugh.

 

I nominate this for most honest post of the year. It's like saying "I had Monica Belluci come to my place for dinner. She was willing, but I settled for a game of chess instead."

 

Which Esoteric ? When ? In association with what equipment ? I guess all those positive Dagogo reviews on Esoteric units are hooey. Go figure...

Uh huh...

D.D.

 

I said "might." I don't agree it's a myth.

 

Ah - the fervor and innocence of youth.

 

A magazine is filled with different people and different opinions. Michael Fremer and Art Dudly DO NOT agree with each other on what makes good sound reproduction. If they did they would own the same gear or at least the same technology to reproduce the gear. And that would be the same with me and other writers on our staff and them with each other. It's been quite some time since I have auditioned an Esoteric CD player but I will be flying into San Francisco for the California Audio show July 28-30 and if Esoteric is there I will be happy to try their new models. In the past I auditioned Esoteric in an all Audio Note system, with Avalon/Mark Levinson, Wilson Audio/Esoteric (with their amps).

I'm in the market for CD replay and will be happy to give them a go. I do like their transport mechanism. Unlike some you actually get a quality mechanism for your money.

 

I live in Hong Kong. I am too exhausted with all the 25-30 year old Asian models for a 52 year old Monica Belluci. So chess is about right

People seem to get the impression I dislike the Esoteric and I don't but listening to them in the past none of them made me jump up and say wow that is great CD playback. Not when factoring in the price. They use a terrific transport mechanism - probably one of the two best available so I'd be happy with it as a transport I am sure. But there are two major parts to this and the other part is the DA Conversion.

If you know what my preference is for DA Conversion (Audio Note R2R ladder 18 bit DACs via tubes) then you will understand perhaps why the Solid State over/upsampling. I remember going to a dealer hearing an AN CD player for around $4,000 directly against the famous and then most expensive Linn Sondek CD player which back then was $20,000US and the former frankly blew it away regardless of the discs I used. So I have my reference platform as to what good CD replay ought to sound like. Of course the best from them makes Esoteric's flagships positively affordable in contrast.

 

To this day I've never heard anyone say that the Linn CD12 was blown away by another cd player, and that player is going on 20 years old. Looks like I have to audition some AN gear.

 

More basic question: Of all the components in a system, I always thought that the CD player/DAC made the least difference, due to the high quality playback of even some of the $300 players. You guys know this gear a lot better than I do. Are the fancy players really that much better? I do prefer my $1000 Marantz 8004, but my $300 Denon 390 sounded really good too,and I imagine the $300 players of today are a heap better than my old Denon. Just curious what you all think...

 

Oppo 105D , sounds wonderful on SACD , IMO

 

While the redbook was not as nice as my Marantz 8004, the SACD was top notch.

 

Old saying, garbage in, garbage out meaning it all starts with source.

There are no high quality $300.00 players. Anyone who believes that hasn't actually heard a high quality player.

As you noticed things start getting a lot better around the $1000.00 mark and continue to improve as one goes up the ladder. I know some will ask is a $10,000.00 player 10x better than a $1000.00 player? Maybe, maybe not, but it is better. How does one even calculate how many times better a piece of gear is? It's ridiculous when you think about it.

 

My experience has been that, as long as the associated gear is up to the job ( Is a $20K source going to up the game of a pair of $ 2K speakers set up poorly in a poor room and run by a $700 receiver enough to justify the purchase ? ), the "fancy" players I've owned or auditioned are generally more enjoyable to listen to and deal with the sonic shortcomings of less "fancy" units that make some people disdain digital. I don't buy into the "bits is bits" argument based on this experience. Others can disagree. I would also note that I'm not offering a blanket endorsement of "fancy" players or any particular manufacturer of equipment. That's a mug's game.

D.D.

 

1 million likes.

D.D.

 

I would say anyone who believes that probably isn't an audiophile. But, most of us here are, so it's a valid point, I feel. The 10x better question is a law of diminishing marginal utility conundrum. I will say that my friends $13K Audio Research player is much "better" than my $1000 Marantz; but, if I had the right room, I'd prefer to upgrade from my Harbeth 30s to the 40s with the additional $12K, or some such variation.

 

I totally agree. I'd rather have $10k speakers than a $10k source if I had to choose between the two.

Bill

 

Sure. Once you've got great speakers in place though, upgrading the source makes a lot more sense. And down the rabbit hole we go....



D.D.

 

I understand that. But I certainly wouldn't spend $10k for a source if my system was not comparable. In other words I wouldn't spend $10k for a source to go with my "new" pair of $10k speakers. I'm sure a $10k CD/SACD player would sound better than my Oppo 105D. But I don't believe it would sound 10 times better.

 

And I'm not saying that someone should go down the rabbit hole.... merely pointing out the entrance. I agree with your point about how you would prioritize funds in your previous post. As to a sounding ten times better than b, that's largely subjective and entirely an individual decision as @F1nut noted.

D.D.

 

That rule certainly doesn't apply to digital. It is more true of analogue sources but always a point where diminishing returns sets in steeply. A relatively inexpensive digital player may well sound great with expensive speakers but you would have to go on a model by model basis.