Yes best bang for your buck. And I have lots of CD players. 4 turntables and and 8 CD players. I think this is the long term keeper.
I generally prefer filter 1, but if I notice a particular recording sounding a bit too dark or recessed, filter 2 can sometimes inject the necessary brightness.
We’ll I definitely don’t need brightness added on my system. It’s just about right, no matter the recording.
Still thoroughly enjoying the SA-KI Ruby for CD and SACD playback as well as a DAC. I've switched the filters back and forth a few times and can't say one is preferred over the other. I believe it's set to Filter 1 at this time. I'll have to play around with the filters when time allows. I plan on buying a backup travers unit just to be on the safe side. 991312100050S Marantz E2a022a Travers Unit Sa11s3
I don't think of brightness as an absolute term, about which one could say it definitely is or is not added. Rather, it's always relative, and in your graph, filter 2 would indeed sound brighter than filter 1. In any case, all I'm saying is that most CDs sound more balanced on my system with filter 1, but a rare few (like the Mofi gold CD of Chicago 17) sound a little too dark, and turning on filter 2 makes it sound like more like most other albums through filter 1. Another system might find filter 2 to sound more balanced with most, and would probably only need to use filter 1 to tame unusually bright CDs. The only thing that would be surprising would be if someone reported the opposite (that is, that filter 1 sounds brighter than filter 2). Of course, we also may have different senses of what "brightness" sounds like (for example, is it mainly about treble, or mainly about upper midrange?). It is interesting that I can hear a parallel with my tube power amp, which also has a switchable setting (in this case, between single-ended triode mode and ultra-linear mode). While it's not exactly the same, I've discovered that in comparison to the ultra-linear mode, the SET mode sounds more like filter 1 (and vice-versa, with the ultra-linear sounding more like filter 2). I've mostly been playing vinyl since I started switching between the modes (as for a long time I just kept it in SET mode). I've found that for the most part, vintage vinyl from the '70s and '80s tends to sound better with ultra-linear, while newer audiophile masterings tend to sound better in SET. I'll be curious to see whether/how the two modes affect my filter preferences on the Ruby.
Filter 2 according to Marantz: “Very short pre-ringing - long post-ringing. Neutral tonal balance - slightly brighter than “Filter 1”.
Hi Mark, Yes, treble is responsible for brightness. Objectively, as you can see from the graph, filter one is rolled off, darker than filter two. This roll off occurs entirely in the treble frequency range. Filter one colors the sound of the source. So, I wouldn't call filter two bright, I'd call it flat. I tried to clarify this above because when I buy a SACD/CD player, I want a flat response. I don't want the sound of my source to be colored. So, I am very grateful for filter two and I am grateful that Marantz gives its Ruby owners the option to choose it over filter one. I bought the SA8005 a few years back and it didn't have this option. I returned it. Also, I have found the SACD playback on my Ruby to have the same flat EQ as filter 2 on my CDs. SACD's don't have that rolled off sound that filter one has. I like this because I then get a consistent sound whether I play a CD or a SACD.
Great points as usual, George. Just to clarify my own position, "brighter than" does not equal "bright." A flat response is indeed brighter than a rolled off response. The one place where we might differ is that I don't assume that all my other equipment, and my room, and my hearing, are all so perfectly flat that a graph showing a particular component or sound to be "flat" has any meaningful bearing on how it will sound in combination with all of the above. For example, I'm pretty sure I've read that a headphone that measured flat would sound excessively bright to most human ears. Something that measures "rolled off" could still be too bright in certain cases, and something that measures "tipped up" could sound too dark in a different set of real world applications. So "brighter than" or "darker than" are always only relative terms to me. But I fully believe that filter 2 sounds more balanced to you on your equipment, in your room, and through your ears--and they all may very well be more neutral than mine. We can only report what we experience in our own spaces (and fill out our equipment profiles). It's interesting that you say the SACD sounds more like filter 2. I haven't noticed that. To the contrary, I find filter 2 to flatten the imaging very slightly, and I definitely don't hear that with SACD playback. In terms of brightness, I kind of feel like the SACD playback might offer a perfect midway point between filters 1 and 2. YMMV.
Rolled off isn't flat, it isn't neutral. So to use a rolled off filter as a reference point is unintelligible. I find it more honest, more accurate to say that filter one is rolled off, darker than filter two, since filter one is flat, neutral. The rest of your post sounds like some kind of justification for your choosing filter one. In doing so, you make a number of incorrect assumptions about me, my system and my preferences. I'm sorry, but that isn't cool with me. So I won't be continuing this discussion.
I'm terribly disappointed that I managed to convey my intentions so poorly that you came away thinking this. I thought--in all sincerity--that I was saying the complete opposite about the likelihood of your system and your preferences. The truth is I make absolutely zero assumptions about even my own combination of equipment, room, and hearing in relation to some theoretically neutral standard, let alone anyone else's, and that's all I was trying to convey. I apologize in all sincerity for appearing to make any assumptions about you whatsoever, let alone negative ones. I have nothing but respect for you and your contributions over many years here.
Guys, I am a little confused here, probably because I do not own a Ruby. I thought the Ruby up-sampled everything to DSD before converting to analog. What are these filters for? They roll off at too low of a frequency to be used for DSD.
However it technically shakes out, the filters are used to effectively tailor the sound. Filter 1 is Ken Ishiwata’s preferred mode. Filter 2 provides a subtle alternative. They can be changed on the fly, and are clearly audible. Yes, PCM is up-sampled to DSD256. DSD is passed through as is.
This morning I tried cycling between Filter 1 and 2 on two of my favorite albums. I played CSN's boat album and Joe Walsh's But Seriously Folks Audio Fidelity CDs. After playing both CDs straight through I have to say Filter 1 would be my preference. Filter 2 seems to add just a bit more treble than I prefer. It's very close in comparison and I can see switching back and forth depending on the CD. I also see this as being very system and room dependent with no right or wrong answer as far as which filter one prefers.
Both your original post in question, as well as your apology, were written with the utmost respect. You are not responsible for another’s misinterpretation.
Has anyone compared the KI-Ruby SACD to the 30n in terms of overall sound quality from Redbook CD and SACD, directly?
There have been a few comparisons upthread…. My impression was that the Ruby is a degree more transparent. Because I’m cautious of transparency, I went with the 30n, which was also $1000 cheaper at the time. But for the same asking price, and as long as you don’t need the built in streamer (of only average quality), I’d go with the Ruby. No question.
Yes, I've owned both (and now own the Ruby). In short, the Ruby is tighter and truer sounding and leans more neutral tonally (but still retains some of that Marantz signature tonality), whereas the 30N is somewhat 'softer' sounding, i.e. not as tight and true (thought still excellent in this regard), and is more colored tonally (has a lot more of that signature Marantz tonality). To my ears, the Ruby is better sounding, though the 30N is a tad more forgiving of poor recordings. The 'voicing' or frequency balances of the sound signatures are virtually identical, and both roll off the high frequencies a little bit. If you don't need the features of the 30N that are not in the Ruby, then for the same price, the Ruby is the way to go. Easy choice, IME. The 30N is very well built, but the Ruby is in another league and is a complete tank (and has the beautiful aesthetics and is one of the best-looking players, if not the best looking, I've ever owned). About the only thing I don't like is for some odd reason the Ruby does not feature a front panel display dimming feature like every other Marantz product I've owned. You can only turn if off. Other than that, when it's on, it's what would be the medium brightness setting. I always like to dim it down to its lowest. That and maybe that there is no separate button for like the USB flash drive input (you have to press the 'disc/input' button a few times to get to that function) and the display doesn't show as much information as the 30N's. At only $3K (at Music Direct), the Ruby is one of the best bargains ever for such a premium player. It's amazing MD still has stock as everyone else I think has long sold out.
With filter 2 on the 30n, I wouldn't call it softer at all and since adding the Wire world silver eclipse 8's after gauging it's initial sound the sound indeed has bloomed several notches in all parameters while increasing tonality and musicality, I went for transparency when building my recent playback chain and the 30n I will describe as transparent and very neutral. I kept my Gustard Dac A18 (uses an AKM 4499 chip) to compare and the Marantz Sound if you will even with filter one is not as it use to be in past iterations and in recent years and has evolved . Can't go wrong with Ruby by an long shot but should be known that the 30n has some serious chops and is of very high resolution for cd/sacd etc..!
Question as I eye this player, which has been out a while. Anyone hooked up a music streamer to the USB DAC input? I’m wanting to run something like a Lumin U1 Mini to handle high Rez streaming and hoping the Marantz DAC is up to snuff.
I wish Marantz would make another stand alone DAC. doesn’t look like they or other Japanese big companies are interested in standalone DACs anymore.
Has anyone compared the Ruby with a PS Audio Directstream player? I've found one comparison with a DS Jr, but not the top model. Both players appear to take the approach of converting PCM to DSD and upsampling before doing D/A through the 1-bit signal, so I'm very curious how the results differ. (With the next gen Directstream recently announced, there are a lot of deals on the 1st gen model, which put it pricewise in the same ballpark as the Ruby.)
