I had the same concerns and so went with the Marantz SA-14 ver. 2 because not only is it not cluttered with video circuitry, it's only 2 channel, which avoids more clutter. That said, the multi-channel players I've heard on even modest players and systems are very compelling given a good surround sound SACD. Maybe keep your good CD player and add an SACD player? If you have a stellar two-channel set up, you can add an amp to power the sub, center, and rears without "tainting" your current set up. : ) There *are* expensive high-end universals available now, as you've noticed, but why not wait for someone to come out with a really clean dedicated SACD player that's less cluttered and less expensive? I'm sure the people over at Musical Fidelity are working on something like that right now. It's my humble opinion that a good SACD player may not have to be as expensive as a good CD player, as CD players need a lot of band-aid technology, to flesh out CD sound, that SACD players don't.
hi-end universal players?
Linn's Unidisk, Goldmund, the new Theta Compli, MSB Platinum Universal, Bell Canto, Esoteric etc etc...
How do they compare?
How do they compare on CDs with the better CD players?
Which one the best in terms of CD? SACD? DVD-A?
Given the age of uncertainty, but a personal interest in high-rez, I am tempted to just go with an universal player, though concerned all that circuity, especially for video, will degrade the quality...how about you?
How do they compare?
How do they compare on CDs with the better CD players?
Which one the best in terms of CD? SACD? DVD-A?
Given the age of uncertainty, but a personal interest in high-rez, I am tempted to just go with an universal player, though concerned all that circuity, especially for video, will degrade the quality...how about you?