• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Marantz SA-10 Review (SACD Player & DAC)

Rate this product:

  • 1. Poor (headless panther)

    Votes: 70 23.3%
  • 2. Not terrible (postman panther)

    Votes: 139 46.2%
  • 3. Fine (happy panther)

    Votes: 78 25.9%
  • 4. Great (golfing panther)

    Votes: 14 4.7%

  • Total voters
    301
OP
amirm

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
44,376
Likes
234,537
Location
Seattle Area
Agree with @restorer-john on this. Testing should be done to AES17-1998-(r2004) or later when testing digital devices.
So you want to see this instead of the jitter graph I show?

1647311121322.png


Just because a spec exists doesn't mean we want to chase it. The measurement set you see from me has evolved over testing of nearly 400 DACs. It has no trouble differentiating DACs from each other no matter how good. Sure, if you run a lab and want to get paid per measurement, you follow the AES spec. But that is not what we do here.
 

sam_adams

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Dec 24, 2019
Messages
976
Likes
2,368
There is always this one...


There was also this one... (Sheffield had one more, can't find it)...


I find it useful for basic setup, the songs are pretty sterile and I don't think I have ever listened to them in their entirety, as is often the case with these audiophile references for me (maybe my fault)...

The Prosonus CD is just test tones.

Somewhere I have these two (see if you can tell what's wrong with the McIntosh back cover):

cover b.jpg


Back.jpg


Probably buried in a box in a dark closet . . .
 

levimax

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 28, 2018
Messages
2,349
Likes
3,462
Location
San Diego
We can see from Amir's measurement that the results, while respectable, are no where near SOTA, not even in the excellent tier of competing products, most of them of considerable lower cost.
I believe this is the first time @amirm has tested a disc player with an actual disc. I would like to know how well all the digital playback theory plays out with some actual hardware/ software scenarios such as.

1. CD Player test disc output like this test.

2. Ripped test CD compressed to Flac and played back with known SOTA DAC.

3. Streamed test CD (there are some on the sites but not sure how good they are) played back through a player like Roon with SOTA USB DAC. This is what I would be most interested to see.

I don't know but I have my doubts that everything digital playback is actually working exactly as expected.
 

sam_adams

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Dec 24, 2019
Messages
976
Likes
2,368
So you want to see this instead of the jitter graph I show?

View attachment 192542

Just because a spec exists doesn't mean we want to chase it. The measurement set you see from me has evolved over testing of nearly 400 DACs. It has no trouble differentiating DACs from each other no matter how good. Sure, if you run a lab and want to get paid per measurement, you follow the AES spec. But that is not what we do here.

Don't get me wrong on this, what you do is absolutely invaluable to the audio community at-large and to all of us here. The data set here is unmatched anywhere else. The one thing that bothers me, is the subjectivists elsewhere that point and say; "Amir is wrong because he didn't test this." When one can point to your work and say; "Amir tests to this standard; do you have anything better to measure by?" Rigor in one's methodology by testing to a standard places one beyond reproach of criticism from those who simply don't understand the methods employed.

I've read many of your posts over the years on other forums where you absolutely trounced the arguments and objections of those less capable—even those who are 'respected' audio professionals. Employing a reference standard during testing re-enforces the presentation of the captured data and places it outside of criticism. Doing so would elevate your work here to a level that renders any criticism moot and still remain accessible to all who seek it out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DWI

voodooless

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 16, 2020
Messages
10,229
Likes
17,811
Location
Netherlands
And wideband FFT of the same:

index.php
Imagine what this would look like with real music. It would be one massive ultrasonic mirror fest. A funfair house or mirrors would pale in comparison.
 

restorer-john

Grand Contributor
Joined
Mar 1, 2018
Messages
12,586
Likes
38,284
Location
Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia
The Prosonus CD is just test tones.

Somewhere I have these two (see if you can tell what's wrong with the McIntosh back cover):

View attachment 192541

View attachment 192543

Probably buried in a box in a dark closet . . .

The Prosonus CD is just test tones.

Somewhere I have these two (see if you can tell what's wrong with the McIntosh back cover):

View attachment 192541

View attachment 192543

Probably buried in a box in a dark closet . . .

The Denon is a fabulous disc, but it has a greater spray of spikes on its digitally derived 1kHz tracks (track 18,19 & 49) than either the Philips CD3, Sony YEDs or the CBS CD-1 discs. The absolute numbers may not be much different (same focusrite interface, same CD player -Marantz PMD-325 professional), but the picture sure isn't pretty with the Denon test disc on the 1001Hz track... The other two standard test discs give identical results.

Philips No3 test disc, 997Hz 0dBFS:
philips no3 997hz 0dbfs.png


CBS CD-1 997Hz 0dBFS:
cbs cd1 997Hz 0dbfs.png


Denon Test Disc, Track 49 1001Hz 0dBFS:
denon audio technical dsic 1001hz 0dBfs.png


Considering the Denon track is a digitally derived sine, it has a wide skirt around the fundamental and a bunch of spurious junk. The other two (Philips and CBS) are clean.

What this also shows is the 20 year old Marantz 'Professional' player and the low cost Focusrite A/D front end are giving THD figures virtually the same as what the SA-10 achieved. Notice the THD only numbers are excellent.
 
Last edited:

pma

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 23, 2019
Messages
4,592
Likes
10,728
Location
Prague
I don't know why you guys turn every review into a project by asking for this and that measurement. Here is CD playback anyway:

index.php


And wideband FFT of the same:

index.php


Both added to the review.

Thank you, this is just what I would expect from this player. As a small comparison, I attach a measurement of cheaper Marantz SA-7001 (2007) in CD mode.
SA_7001_1k_0dBFS_balout.png

If you look at noise component individually (88.3uV, left top corner) and compare it to FS, it is just at the limit of the noise of the dithered 44.1/16 signal.

Are you using a 997Hz sine from the CD source? CBS CD-1 uses 997Hz, others use 1001Hz to keep away from correlation with the sampling frequency.
He uses a 1kHz dithered tone, from the first view.
So there's a big disparity in THD with rated spec (0.0015%@1kHz). How much noise do we have in that THD+N?
I never believe manufacturer's specs until I make my own measurements. Anyway, you can easily calculate the noise from SINAD and THD seen in the plot.

SA-10 is about 2dB worse than the limit of the TPD dithered 44.1/16 signal. TPD dither takes 4.8dB from the theoretical S/N of 6.02N + 1.76dB. 6.02N + 1.76dB makes 98.08dB. After dithering it is 98.08 - 4.8 = 93.28dB. Corresponding theoretical THD+N limit is 0.0021%.

Analysis of the TPD dithered mathematically generated signal>
1KHz_sig_TPD_dithered.png


1kHz undithered
1KHz_sig_TPD_undithered.png

Less noise, but correlated spuriae that are audible at lower signal level. Talking about pure sine wave.
 

pma

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 23, 2019
Messages
4,592
Likes
10,728
Location
Prague
The Denon is a fabulous disc, but it has a greater spray of spikes on its digitally derived 1kHz tracks (track 18,19 & 49) than either the Philips CD3, Sony YEDs or the CBS CD-1 discs. The absolute numbers may not be much different (same focusrite interface, same CD player -Marantz PMD-325 professional), but the picture sure isn't pretty with the Denon test disc on the 1001Hz track... The other two standard test discs give identical results.

Anyone (with necessary knowledge) can prepare better test discs these days as we have much better SW.
 

voodooless

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 16, 2020
Messages
10,229
Likes
17,811
Location
Netherlands
Would love to see the plot at 5 kHz @ 44.1 kHz. SINAD would be something like 50 (filter 1) or 70 (filter 2). Even 1 Khz with filter 2 would be interesting to see (about 70 as well).
 

pma

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 23, 2019
Messages
4,592
Likes
10,728
Location
Prague
Would love to see the plot at 5 kHz @ 44.1 kHz. SINAD would be something like 50 (filter 1) or 70 (filter 2). Even 1 Khz with filter 2 would be interesting to see (about 70 as well).

I don't think so in case you would use 20Hz-22kHz BW to define SINAD. SA-7001 has SINAD of 80.3 dB at 5kHz.
 

voodooless

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 16, 2020
Messages
10,229
Likes
17,811
Location
Netherlands
I don't think so in case you would use 20Hz-22kHz BW to define SINAD. SA-7001 has SINAD of 80.3 dB at 5kHz.
Sure, squinting makes it all look better, doesn't it?

Let's see a 20 kHz sine wave from the thing (@44.1 kHz sampling). I bet It's a total mess.
 
Last edited:

restorer-john

Grand Contributor
Joined
Mar 1, 2018
Messages
12,586
Likes
38,284
Location
Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia
He uses a 1kHz dithered tone, from the first view.

It is not 1kHz for the CD playback test.

Look at the frequency in the dashboard. 997Hz to two decimal places. That is a standard CD test frequency used by Philips and CBS. Never 1kHz. 997 is prime and not divisible into the sampling frequency.

1647332937247.png
 

restorer-john

Grand Contributor
Joined
Mar 1, 2018
Messages
12,586
Likes
38,284
Location
Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia
The decaying harmonics are primarily odd. 3/5/7/9/11/13/15/17/19/21kHz. What does that tell you? ;)
 

pma

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 23, 2019
Messages
4,592
Likes
10,728
Location
Prague
Sure, squinting makes it all look better, doesn't it?

Let's see a 20 kHz sine wave from the thing (@44.1 kHz sampling). I bet It's a total mess.

Can't speak about SA-10, but I can show you SA-7001 results. Sorry the 20kHz is from older disc that was generated with old AP-1 some 25 years ago.

5kHz

SA_7001_5k_0dBFS_balout_96k.png


White noise (filter response)
SA_7001_white_balout_96k.png


20kHz
SA_7001_20k_96k.png

The only "mess" here is the 24.1kHz/-106dBr component (44.1 - 20 = 24.1). 40kHz is a 2nd harmonic distortion.

It is easy to laugh at technology that is 20 - 40 years old. How about nowadays class D wideband SINAD measurements, is it better than this??
 

voodooless

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 16, 2020
Messages
10,229
Likes
17,811
Location
Netherlands
Can't speak about SA-10, but I can show you SA-7001 results. Sorry the 20kHz is from older disc that was generated with old AP-1 some 25 years ago.

5kHz

View attachment 192598

White noise (filter response)
View attachment 192600

20kHz
View attachment 192601
The only "mess" here is the 24.1kHz/-106dBr component (44.1 - 20 = 24.1). 40kHz is a 2nd harmonic distortion.
That looks just fine. Good stopband, relatively low distortion
It is easy to laugh at technology that is 20 - 40 years old. How about nowadays class D wideband SINAD measurements, is it better than this??
Nothing to laugh at, those things were already pretty good back then. Is Class D wideband better than this specifically? Probably not. But looking at the filter of the Marantz, I'd say, yes, some amps do better.
index.php
 
Last edited:

DWI

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2021
Messages
495
Likes
437
Ostensibly, that is why Marantz believes it can and should charge $7500 for a SACD player; the expectation of life-long service. The SMSL makes no such pretense; they are hoping you regularly upgrade to their latest and greatest. Nonetheless, it should never fail prematurely or catch on fire!

As for "some of us", I resemble that remark. I still buy Bryston's hardware for their temerity to have a 20 year warranty; I just exercised that option on a piece of gear that was 18 years old. None of the Sony mass market gear I purchased in my 20's or 30's lasted that long; my NADs did.
This is the additional info you get when you click on the LEARN MORE link from the MMM technology description:
View attachment 192535

IMHO, this player exemplifies much of what is wrong with the audio industry these days. Marantz develops a "novel" technology solution (MMM) to solve god knows what problem. In the end, the proof is in the pudding as the saying goes. We can see from Amir's measurement that the results, while respectable, are no where near SOTA, not even in the excellent tier of competing products, most of them of considerable lower cost. On top of that Marantz continues to cover it with a thick layer of HDAM sauce, I've had more than enough of that one to feel indigestion from my own Marantz gear over the last 9 years. Marantz should at the very least test and measure what they design to see if their pet theory of audio nirvana even brings any benefits in the real world.
Marantz did not invent upsampling. dCS released the dCS 972, a digital to digital upsampler for professional use, in 1997, 25 years ago. It’s now pretty standard. What they have achieved with it is phenomenal. When I first heard their Vivaldi system in 2013 playing a humble Baroque CD recorded by Linn. … I’ve never heard anything as transparent from an audio system and never have since.
 

voodooless

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 16, 2020
Messages
10,229
Likes
17,811
Location
Netherlands
Marantz did not invent upsampling. dCS released the dCS 972, a digital to digital upsampler for professional use, in 1997, 25 years ago. It’s now pretty standard. What they have achieved with it is phenomenal. When I first heard their Vivaldi system in 2013 playing a humble Baroque CD recorded by Linn. … I’ve never heard anything as transparent from an audio system and never have since.
dCS hardly invented upsampling either. Oversampling filters (which is just upsampling) were already part of the early 14 bit TDA DACs like TDA1450 (SAA7030 filter) from 1982 on. Basically 99.99% percent of DAC's after that used oversampling. Filters are of varying quality throughout the decades of course, and today it's no different. In general: the more boutique, the worse the filter. This Marantz CD player fell also victim to this.
 
Top Bottom