Shanling SCD-T200 here - listening tests.

Posted by Allen Wright (M) on June 9, 2003 at 05:47:24

Last week I received one of these very pretty SACD players to investigate it's upgrade potential, and before doing any internal surgery, I was very curious to hear how it sounds stock.

But first a few comments on it's operation. It's transport is unusual - if you put in a new disc it will not directly accept a "Play" command but spins the disc up (twice) to seemingly decide what it is and how to handle it. Only then will it accept a track choice or a "Play" command. And through this process it makes quite a lot of mechical noise - much more than any player that has the transport inside the cabinet. But it sure is pretty...

After more than 48 hours of warm up, it was compared to a stock Marantz SA-14, a stock SCD-777ES and a stock (european) XB940. The expected Philips 963 didn't arrive in time - but will be compared as soon as it does.

The test system comprised: Vacuum State RTP3C preamp & PP-2CS poweramps, Ted Jordan based speakers and Vacuum State silver foil I/C & spk cables.

The test track was #5 off the Channel Classics CCS SA 16501 Hybrid of Peter Wispelwey playing Tchaikovsky/Saint-Saens/Bruch. Playing volume was checked for all players and reset to 90dB "C" weighted at the first (loud) chord on track #1 of this disc. Therefore most of the test track was below 80dB. Only the SACD layer was used.

All the players tested are STOCK, either not (yet) upgraded, or on the SONY's the output taken from the standard non-upgraded outputs:

SONY X940 (stock outputs) : "Electronic" sounding, good room space on simple sections but rapidly getting confused on more complex passages. Overall a "lightweight" sound. Listener interest not kept at all. Not in the same class as the other three units, and hence not included in the following comparisons.

Marantz SA-14 (stock): Warmer sounding (to the point of sounding 'thick") than the Shanling or SCD-777ES. More bass weight, perhaps too much compared to what I would expect to hear in concert from a similar sized orchestra. It did give a very good tonal distiction between the 'left & right' bow strokes of the cello from it's entrance at 0.55 seconds. (Don't know the correct musical terms...) But as more & more of the orchestra joined in it became messy and lost the clarity/tonality it had when the music was less complex.

SCD-777ES (stock outputs): Very good room space with a very clear & dynamic presentation - instruments soared. Overall "weight" seemed correct. You could hear very clearly the fact that he was making 'forward & back' bow strokes on the cello - but it didn't show the *tonal* difference of this change of bow direction as well as the SA-14. A strange effect - it was like you could sense the change of hand direction better than the change in tonality. And it kept my interest.

Shanling SCD-T200 - from the direct outputs ie none of it's tubes in circuit:

Less obvious room space than the 777ES but more than the SA-14. Richer sounding than the 777ES but not so much as the SA-14. Very good dynamics, the music blooms and brings the tonal qualities of the cello, dragging me back to the music even if taking notes. Overall very natural, and to date, by a small amount, the best sounding 'stock' SACD player I have had here - although the 777ES has it's strengths as well. A very nice surprise!

Shanling SCD-T200 - from the tube outputs:

Softer, but not in a nice way. Yukky even. Much less definition than from the direct outputs, and it becomes rapidly much 'messier' on complex music. Room space indistinct. Not involving. Clearly worst of the four choices, and I'd take a stock 940 over this, if I had to make such a choice.

------------------------
IMO, the addition of the tubes in to the signal path turns a surprisingly good sounding player into a joke - confirming my original opinion (after having seen the schematics) that the tubes are there only for cosmetic/sales reasons. They are wired in AFTER the normal (and quite well done) DAC/opamp section, so are an affront to the KISS princlple - and can only add distortions with zero benefit. As a manufacturer of tube based equipment for over 20 years, I can say with conviction that tubes should not be used this way!
------------------------

I hope I can keep my hands away from the tools long enough to compare the stock Shanling to the soon arriving Philips 963...

Allen

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

Topic - Shanling SCD-T200 here - listening tests. - Allen Wright 05:47:24 06/09/03 (21)

Re: Shanling SCD-T200 here - listening tests. - akltam 18:45:23 06/10/03 (1)

Re: Shanling SCD-T200 here - listening tests. - Allen Wright 03:27:12 06/11/03 (0)

Re: Shanling SCD-T200 here - listening tests. - Jack G 13:16:20 06/10/03 (2)

WE 396A's - Allen Wright 03:53:59 06/11/03 (1)

Re: WE 396A's - Jack G 13:28:25 06/11/03 (0)

A couple of points to be considered - orejones 11:12:12 06/10/03 (1)

Re: A couple of points to be considered - Allen Wright 03:30:08 06/11/03 (0)

Mods vs. synergies? - Jim Pearce 10:33:57 06/10/03 (2)

Re: Mods vs. synergies? - Allen Wright 03:40:38 06/11/03 (1)

Re: Mods vs. synergies? - Stephen 04:16:48 06/11/03 (0)

Re: Shanling SCD-T200 here - listening tests. - CELT 14:47:32 06/09/03 (1)

Exactly. - Allen Wright 08:36:31 06/10/03 (0)

May depend on taste and downstream components - SSSound 13:39:26 06/09/03 (1)

Did they really use the tube outputs? (nt) - Allen Wright 15:20:33 06/09/03 (0)

Thanks for the great comparison . . . - Amir1B 12:35:43 06/09/03 (0)

what a waste of money on the tubes... - dorkus 11:22:27 06/09/03 (4)

you mean something like this: - ramossp 11:35:56 06/09/03 (3)

Re: you mean something like this: - saywhat 19:17:29 06/09/03 (0)

Re: you mean something like this: - rebop 11:42:15 06/09/03 (1)

This thing looks good... - Allen Wright 15:32:20 06/09/03 (0)

thanks Allen - hifitommy 07:14:28 06/09/03 (0)

You can not post to an archived thread.