Thread: The Marantz SA-8001 and 8003 SACD players

Posts: 10

Post by emaidel June 9, 2009 (1 of 10)
About a year and a half ago, I purchased the Marantz SA-8001 SACD player. I had an interest in the purported sonic superiority of SACD's over redbook CD's, but wasn't interested in multi-channel (my listening room and budget prohibit expanding to multi-channel). I only wanted an SACD player if it also upgraded the sound of my 1,800 or so CD's, as I certainly wasn't about to throw them all away, and buy all new SACD versions of them.

The 8001 fit the bill nicely, and that which clinched the deal was the glowing review it received in Stereophile, resulting in its receiving Stereophile's top accolade, a "Class-A" Recommendation, something usually reserved for equipment costing tens of thousands of dollars. At a "mere" $900, the 8001 sounded like a steal. A hearty recommendation from Jack Renner that I would appreciate the sonic benefits of SACD's in 2-channel stereo helped too.

That which is most telling in the Stereophile review is that when the 8001 was used as a transport, and connected to the Benchmark Audio outboard DAC (another "Class-A" recommended product, costing almost twice that which the 8001 alone did), they weren't able to discern any difference between that combination, and the 8001 as a stand alone CD player. After convincing my wife that my need for a new SACD player was a matter of life or death, I finally bought one.

The very first disc I played on it was the Robert Shaw/Telarc CD of Brahm's "Ein Deutches Requiem," which had been very troublesome on my previous setup (an Adcom GCD-600 CD player with the Adcom GDA-600 DAC - a pretty decent combination), resulting in annoying "tick, tick, ticking" on most tracks. Not only did the disc play flawlessly on the 8001, but the sound was simply glorious. From the opening of the second movement, the string basses sounded better than they ever had, but as the violins appeared off to the left of the soundstage, it was as if they were coming straight from heaven. In short, the sound was nothing less than stunning. And subsequently, I began many hours of listening to all of my favorite CD's and marveling at how much better all of them sounded.

I didn't have any SACD's yet, and my initial order of 12 Telarc discs arrived several days later. The first Telarc SACD that I played was that of Britten's "Young Person's Guide to the Orchestra," along with Elgar's "Enigma Variations." I was VERY disappointed! I expected to have my socks blown off with the sound of an SACD, especially one from my most respected label, and yet despite the power and depth of the soundstage, and the wonderful sonority of trombones, horns and bass drums, there was just no sparkle at all to the top end, and the recording sounded like it had been made with the percussion placed behind heavy drapes.

Fortunately, other discs sounded quite a bit better, especially the DSD-remastered Soundstream recordings of old. Ultimately, I found that the culprit in those recordings I found so lackluster wasn't the SACD medium, but the choice of principal microphone - the Sennheiser MKH-800 - a mike not all Telarc personnel cared for very much.

I've since expanded my SACD collection to about 60 discs, and would have purchased far more if more material were available (a common complaint we all have). Still, on the well mastered SACD's, the sound from the 8001 is truly exceptional. Moreover, "ordinary" CD's have a new life to them too, with much of the "digital glare" so many listeners hate, all but eliminated.

So why am I bothering to say all of this, much of which I've said before, and especially since the 8001 is no longer available? Well, when a product is THIS good, I think one needs to stand on the rooftops and shout about it. Also, its successor - the SA-8003 - from what I've read so far, is at least as good - maybe even a little better - and has a USB port on it too, and costs "only" an additional $100.

$1,000 for an SACD player is far from cheap, but when one considers that that's what the early CD players in 1984 cost, $1,000 becomes a far more reasonable price point, especially when considering inflation and what a dollar is worth today, some 25 years later. Add to that the fact that those 1984 CD players sounded pretty awful, and had very few features that are now commonplace on even the cheapest units, $1,000 for a new SACD player sounds less and less expensive.

I don't want to come across as snobbish or boorish, but when one is listening to a $400 SACD player, or a $400 combination SACD/DVD-A/DVD player, and makes "authoriative" comments about how "horrible" CD's sound, or how awful non-DSD-mastered SACD's sound as well, I think it's time that person (or those people) save up some hard-earned cash and plop down the bucks necessary for a piece of truly good equipment in order to make more informed criticisms.

I've had quite a few good friends who are musicians, conductors and even recording engineers listen to my system, and all of them are dazzled by the performance of the SA-8001. I suspect they would be equally impressed (as I probably would be too) with the performance of the SA-8003. Neither is the very best SACD player available, but both certainly seem to deliver the best "bang for the buck."

If one here, or elsewhere, comments on the recording quality of ANY medium, be it LP's, CD's or SACD's, and isn't using equipment of a very high order of quality, then those comments really can't be taken very seriously. It's really not much different than someone offering a critique of an audiophile LP while playing it on a Magnavox console stereo.

Post by DSD June 9, 2009 (2 of 10)
emaidel said:

... I don't want to come across as snobbish or boorish, but when one is listening to a $400 SACD player, or a $400 combination SACD/DVD-A/DVD player, and makes "authoriative" comments about how "horrible" CD's sound, or how awful non-DSD-mastered SACD's sound as well, I think it's time that person (or those people) save up some hard-earned cash and plop down the bucks necessary for a piece of truly good equipment in order to make more informed criticisms...

This comment is directed at me. My first SACD player was the $1,500 Sony DVP-S9000ES, my second SACD player was the trouble-prone but wonderful sounding $1,699 "tubed" Xindak SCD-2.

My third SACD player was the $450 Yamaha DVD-S1700 which I loved so much I bought it's successor as a back-up, the $450 Yamaha DVD-S1800.

To be honest the Xindak SCD-1 was the best sounding by a very small margain when playing SACDs in some areas (though not all). Overall I like the sound of SACDs better on the less expensive Yamaha's over the high-end Xindak or Sony. This proves to me that price alone is not an accurate barometer of performance, reliability or sound quality.

Also CDs sound better on the Yamaha's than they did on the Xindak or Sony but still massed strings from CDs can be very strident and sometimes downright ugly.

DSD recorded SACDs sounded the best on all four SACD players. Next would be DSD mastered analog recordings, some high resolution PCM mastered SACDs sound decent others do not. It must be pointed out here that my speakers are flat to 45kHz, my pre-amp to 80kHz and my power amp to 100kHz.

I once considered a Marantz SACD player but I read that one of the drawbacks of their smoothness was a "soft" treble, I didn't want to risk my favorite label Telarc losing any of it's beautiful high frequencies especially in the percussion instruments. Perhaps that is why Elgar: Enigma Variations, Britten: Young Person's Guide - Paavo Järvi sounded rolled off it you? It does not on any of the four SACD players I've owned, the percussion has superb attack including the high percussion and lots of ambiance and high frequencies.

I have heard the Sony $5,000 SCD-1 and it sounds fantastic playing SACDs but CDs do still sound like CDs. I guess I just do not have 44.1kHz ears?

Post by emaidel June 10, 2009 (3 of 10)
Point taken, Teresa. Still, the comments about "soft" treble on Marantz SACD players, which I too have read, aren't universal. There's nothing soft, or rolled off about the sound of my 8001, and the addition of Monster Cable M-1000 interconnects did wonders too. Top end sparkle is very much evident in almost all of my SACD's, with specific Telarc discs being the exception. Having discussed this phenomenon with several key people formerly at Telarc, I know the reason (the Sennheiser MKH-800 microphone). When I first played the SACD of Elgar's "Enigma Variations," and was disappointed by the lackluster high end, I played my much older CD of the same piece (also on Telarc) conducted by David Zinman, and preferred its sound.

We each are within our own rights to state what we do and don't hear, but I just can't agree with your overall condemnation of CD's: I have far too many that are sonic knockouts, and which rival many of my newer SACD's.

Post by stvnharr June 10, 2009 (4 of 10)
emaidel said:

We each are within our own rights to state what we do and don't hear, but I just can't agree with your overall condemnation of CD's: I have far too many that are sonic knockouts, and which rival many of my newer SACD's.

When people write about the sound of cd's, sacd's, whatever, they are mostly commenting about the limits of sound from their own audio systems. However, the comments are mostly about how the discs themselves are poor. One only needs to read the various comments on various threads on this forum thru time to find that the writers almost always comment about the shortcomings of a certain disc, with nary a word about their own audio system's ability and performance. The observations are quite true of course, it's just that the conclusions drawn are not quite correct.
Technical glitches aside, the sound of most classical music discs, whether sacd or rbcd, is quite good, if one only has a high enough performing player to be able to hear all the music that is on the disc.

Post by Wilhelm—Xu Zhong-Rui August 9, 2014 (5 of 10)
undertone in /showthread/112102/121287#121287 said:

Anyone else have an evaluation to share, positive or negative, of the SA8005? I auditioned it briefly with a Cary tube headphone amp and Beyer headphones, but haven't heard it in a system comparable to my own. I'm partial to Marantz players, having previously owned an SA8260 and my current player, a DV9600. Very unlikely that I'll be in a position to implement a multichannel system, so a high quality 2-channel source for SACDs, RBCDs, and file playback (MacBook/USB) is of primary importance. My system details are public.

Because (everybody, including myself) being busy (?) I'll reply briefly by bringing up for you to read and continue too the odd suffixes of this heartfelt Thread.


And https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_-aShUYDEo has Ken Ishiwata speaking about designing the Marantz sound.


If I, like you, live in America I'd not hesitate buying the SA8005 because, frustratingly, http://onlinehifi.co.nz/brand/marantz/ "also known as B&W Loudspeakers (NZ) Ltd are the premier audio distributer [including Marantz] in New Zealand" sells it "online" at $3,699 NZD !!

You do the currency conversion ; me, that's currently $631 USD more expensive than a higher-end MSRP SA-14S1 :
http://us.marantz.com/us/Products/Pages/ProductDetails.aspx?CatId=ReferenceSeries&ProductId=SA14S1

Post by mekduk August 10, 2014 (6 of 10)
Wil, I would gladly support your buying spree by sending over the Marantz from Singapore. It is one of the cheapest place in the world to get Marantz gear. You won't have voltage problem in New Zealand as we are running more or less on the same 230V gear. SA8005 is a tad under 1000SGD here.

Post by Wilhelm—Xu Zhong-Rui August 28, 2014 (7 of 10)
Marantz Singapore said:

Any purchase of Marantz product from an authorized dealer in Singapore will be guaranteed of obtaining the full warranty service in Singapore only; provided the original factory serial number must NOT be removed, defaced or replaced in any way.

Marantz is aware of numerous instances in which such serial number tampering has occurred. Serial numbers may be altered by unauthorized dealers or their suppliers in an attempt to prevent manufactures from tracing the supplier source. Any purchase of Marantz product from an UNAUTHORIZED dealer will NOT be honored or serviced under the existing Marantz warranty policy.

Yes, savings when shopping around (across borders...

Need to know what's at stake if...

Yet, worth it ?


Thanks again mekduk for your kindness, I've collected many Marantz and a backlog of various media... Am content to await the next KI release...

Generally, I think the SA8005 (if price is right) a good option for...

Post by Disbeliever August 28, 2014 (8 of 10)
I understand the reason for high audio prices in NZ is the high customs duty. I once knew a NZ Customs Officer keen audiophile who when visiting England bought items for own use presumably to avoid paying high NZ duty.

Post by Disbeliever August 29, 2014 (9 of 10)
Sony XA5400ES also sounds wonderful both CD & SACD especially mch SACD better than any recent Marantz player that I have auditioned. I did use a highly modified Marantz CD 94 for 20 years, despite Ken Ishiwata telling me that the laser will soon fail, A friend also has the Philips version for the past 20 years highly modified, he does agree the Sony has a more extended top.

Post by mekduk August 29, 2014 (10 of 10)
Not so in my opinion if you are talking about the sound quality of latest Marantz NA11S1 vs Sony 5400 or even the latest HAP-Z1ES. As a DAC on Marantz, file player on HAP-Z1ES or 5400 SACD Transport/Player, playing same DSD materials (downloads or DSD bit perfect files from SACD), the Marantz NA11S1 tops the Sony in quite a lot of areas. Even after SSD swap on the HAP-Z1ES (minimise hard drive spinning noise), I will give my preference to the NA11S1. Any better we need to spend much more money obviously.

You can call that comparing apple to orange but simply that is the fact from my experience and perspective.

Closed