Shanling T100 to the T200 shootout


I got a chance to listen to these two players today and was wondering what others think about these. First these are both really good players. I was listening to them on a really high end Krell (not sure the models .. really big monoblocks) and B&W signature 800 system. For me, I did not hear any memorable difference between the two for redbook CD. Some people have stated the T100 sounds better but I liked them both. SACD was quit interesting... I used the following disks: Chick Corea Rendezvous in NY, Moussorgsky Pictures at an Exhibition (telarc), and Monty meets Sly and Robbie (telarc). The last disc showed very little difference between CD and SACD I think do to the heavy bass like that dominates the recording. The CC showed little difference in instruments like the vibraphone and vocals (which surprised me) but a significant difference in the Piano. In CD mode the Piano seemed to be almost secondary to vocals and the vibes. In SACD mode the piano really stood out. It became really obvious that he was playing really fine grand piano and not something smaller. looking back at the liner notes it turns out to have been a 9 ft Yamaha concert grand. You could really hear the hammer hit. On the Moussorgsky the whole orchestra was bigger, more dynamic, and cleaner..

The one thing that did not really change was the imaging, both imaged well. The soundstage was not much bigger or wider it was just cleaner somehow. I'm thinking about picking up the T200 but I can get the T100 at a great price.

I only spent a couple of hours and would like to hear from someone that has spent some time with these players...
Thanks
Bruce
btrvalik

Showing 8 responses by btrvalik

I did not realise these have been selling poorly.. My local dealer said the T100 has been discontinued, hence the good price. One thing this has convinced me of is that the average consumer will never buy SACD just for better 2 channel audio. IMHO the differences between the two formats were subtle even on a super high-end system with me listening like a surgeon. If I did a direct switch between the formats on the current track it was obvious but if I listened from the beining to the CD layer it did not sound like anything was really lacking. Sort of like the tube vs transistor level of difference... maybe a little more. Maybe the wow factor of multi-channel will be enough to keep sacd and dvd-a alive...it didn't work for quad... I find it interesting that I've never walked into a high-end shop that has said "you got to hear this...I've got the new xxxx SA or DVD-A player" Even the drug pushers are not convinced..
It seems like many of the high-end SACD player are 2 channel. Currently I'm looking for a play for my 2 channel CJ based system so the lack of multi channel is not an issue. In my mind it is hard (and expensive) enough to put together a really nice 2 channel system. Between getting the room acoustics right and maintaining a good looking room 2 channel is all I can do on the main floor of the house. My main issue is that I don't upgrade often so my decision will stick for a number of years. I will buy a universal player of some sort this fall for my HT system to experience the whole multichannel audio thing. This room is a play room where looks are not as important and I will be willing to give up some sonics.. it's primarily for movies. I think I'm going to have to give these another listen...
Fs_audio, I've seen pictures of the Xindak but have not see any reviews of it. I just email the distributor to see if there is a dealer in my area. Care to give a "unbiassed" review? I would like to understand what you like about this over the shanling...
I went back to listen to these players today. I'm convinced they sound equally good on CD. I'm not convinced that the t200 sounds better on SACD. Part of my problem is that the t200 had difficulty playing hybrid discs as CD. It worked some of the time but more often than not it told me there was "no disc".. excuse me? what was that shiny thing you just spun for the last minute? Sometimes it would just skip ahead until it found a track it liked. I did a little playing with volume levels and I'm starting to think that my conclusion of SACD being better for certain types of instruments may just be level mismatch.

I still have not listened to multi-channel SACD since I’m looking for a 2 channel player at the moment. I will tackle the multi-channel issue when I finish my HT room later this year. I’m not sure if multi-channel SACD/DVD will be better that CD but I’m sure it will be obviously different. I’m not sure SACD is obviously different (good or bad) than CD. So why am I trying so had to convince myself SACD is better for 2 channel ??? I’m on the typical quest for better… To be honest I'm not a guy that thinks CD sound harsh...I actually like the way my CDs sound.. my CDP is just acting flaky.. is it just my tube gear that makes CDs sound good to me??? But then again I liked CDs with my mosfet amp to..

If SACD or DVD-A is better why is everyone debating it so heavily? Shouldn’t it be obvious by now? I’ve seen more conviction over the sonic benefits for items like cables, power cords and even green markers than SACD or DVD-A. The differences between LP to CD was obvious.. the difference between VHS and DVD was obvious. Some debated the merits but no one debated if there is a difference.. I don’t upgrade often and I would not consider either of these cheap. I’m trying to pick a player for the next 5 years and I’m just getting confused and frustrated. Admittedly neither of these is a bad choice and if they were the same price it would be easy. Argggg
The 777 seems to be a fine player but I think if I'm going to go multi-channel I may as well get a universal player with video. At this point I'm thinking about just buying the T100 (for my 2 channel music only system) at a good price and use the price difference to buy a universal player for my HT room. I can either just buy something moderately priced like the Pioneer 47ia or Dennon 2900, or pick up something like the McCormack in the fall. If I really decide that I'm missing out on SACD in the music room I could run a set of balanced interconnects from by HT room to my 2 channel room. It won't be as convenient as having the player in the same room but it will allow me to use my tube amp with SACD/DVD-A.

I did a little searching last night and I'm amazed at how many post on various site I've see where people have already bought into and give up on SACD or DVD-A. Most people site a lack of software and being under whelmed after the new toy glow wares off.

One of the attractions of this hobby is the process of making trade-offs and building a system that suits some personal needs. I found that the process of selecting other components (tube vs trans amp/preamp, speakers, etc)and making trade-offs to be fun. With these components no matter what the choice you are almost guarrenteed they will work well into the future.

The whole SACD/DVD-A/CD issue has been frustrating since the future value of the equipment is less in the hands of the audiophile and more in the hands of the vendors. If for example SACD dies on the vine you will have just bought into the next divix or minidisc. If it flurishes and you invested your money elsewhere you will have bought one of the last beta machines.. maybe on that bad since CD is not going away but you get the point...

Well this has turned into yet another long winded ramble...
That is exactly what I have in mind... I'm planning to use this for distributing movies from a DVD changer to three other TVs/HT amps in the house so adding another link for music would not be that big of a deal. I would still do the t100 since the whole point of my 2 channel setup is to keep it simple (CD, preamp, amp). Sending the signal half way across the house should have some sonic drawback. Did you ever try sticking the AC unit on a processor look to see if it had an impact? Someone also suggested looking at the Jensen transformers.. seems like a lot of high-end companies use these. I've heard that Sony is planing to introduce a 400 disk DVD/SACD machine this fall. I don't expect the sonics to be great but who knows maybe of they do a ES version it will be fairly good... Where did you get the AC units?
I'll take your list as being pointed and not a flame...

1) the system does not have the capability to show the differences

The system used for the test (about 30-40K worth of Krell and B&W) is most likely more accurate than my CJ based system at home. So if it takes a better system than either of these the difference is kind of subtle..

2) they themselves do not have the capability of hearing the difference

Could be the case, if it is all the better.. I can use the cash to buy other expensive toys... I'm not trying to sway anyones opion here I'm just tying to figure out what I want to buy...

3) is lying

This is a bit accusatory.. The fact of the matter is I really want to convince myself high res is better... the math says it is.. I really want to buy a SACD player.. the problem is I can't seem to lie to myself...

4) owns a VERY special CD player. And, please let's not flatter ourselves here, most of us do not

I'm currently using a rather old Sony ES that is not bad but not even SLIGHTLY special..

5) has not listened to the new format in an appropriate setting
If I can't hear the difference in a fully treated room.. what is the chase my house is more appropriate ? If you look back at my original post my first impression was that SACD was better. On a second extended listen I'm not so sure... I still find it interesting that the guys at the audio store who tend to profit more if I buy the SACD player are not so convinced either. They just say "it's a different sound.. some like it some don't". On other gear they are very clear as to what they like and don't like about the gear they carry.

Beyond all that ... you hit the nail on the head..the real issue is the software. If the difference is not something that most audiophiles adore the average joe does not stand a chance. Without the average Joe SACD does not stand a chance. Let's face it Sony & Phillips are in it for the money.. they are hoping their investment in SACD pays off. If it does not it will die on the vine. These guys are in trouble since their royalties on the original CD patent have already or will soon run out. That is not to say SACD is just hype by a big nasty corpration... I would do the same thing... If the revenue from a current product is going to go down I will do my best to come up with the next best thing... It just may be too good for simple cash spending mortals.
I decided to pick up the T100 yesterday... and I love it. I brought it home, set it up. popped in a few favorite discs and enjoyed... no analysis required. My basic thoughts at this stage are that I will optimize my 2 channel setup for redbook and my HT setup for SACD & DVD-A. My 2 channel system is based on CJ tube gear and the shanling, my multi channel system is based on rotel, and tweaked to death halfer amps. I've got tubes to work there magic on redbook and SS for the extra punch of SACD (with less need for smoothing)

So here is the big shocker...

I really like upsampling... I've always thought this was pure marketing hype... just a new word for oversampling. I did not really pay much attention to upsampling when I was at the store... just so happened that the players I like the most: cary musical fidelity, and shanling all up sample. I also really liked the sim audio players which do not.. The T100 lets you switch it on/off on the fly so it is a real easy A/B. The shocking thing to me was that I notice more of a difference with the upsampling on/off than between SACD & CD. ...Don't go nuts I'm not saying upsampling is better than SACD.. As discussed here before upsampling is just oversampling with a different noise shaping..no more information.. To me the soundstage seems bigger and deeper..but why?

This got me thinking a bit...

Here a complete guess so don't take this too serious... The thing I do for a living is build Voice /IP gear for large telephone carriers. One of the things we do is generate something called comfort noise. VoIP can be heavily compressed depending on the codec used. When it is received on the other side, the background noise has been removed via something called silence suppression. The dead silence (between words) is not desirable to someone listening on the other end since they are use to hearing background noise. Voice quality is judged with something called a MOS (mean opinion score). If we inject artificial noise (comfort noise) into the receiving end the MOS jumps by a huge amount. There is obviously no new information in the audio stream but it is pleasing to the listener and get a higher subjective score. If we measured the signal it would be worst since it contains more noise... I'm wondering if there is a similar situation in audio with tube gear, vinyl, and upsampling, etc... vs transistors, CD, and SACD.