SSP-300 vs Sigma-SSP

[JoeTheLion]

Hi all!

I know the title of the thread seems a little absurd, as there are more than 10 years between the two models. But, a used SSP-300 can be bought for under a thousand dollars whereas a Sigma-SSP costs more than four times that.

This would be an update for me from my old SSP-30 (its digital inputs stopped working for some reason so don't have surround sound any more). I also have the CAV-180 and Nautilus 802 speakers. As it is, even the SSP-30 is good enough for my stereo music listening, but I need a (5.1) home theater solution too.

If I get the SSP-30; I could always use an hdmi switch for video, and would save a lot of money.

There is also the possibility of buying another brand cheaper HT processor or even A/V receiver, and using the SSP-30 only for stereo using some kind of pass-through (I don't know how to do that yet).

So, is it really worth forcing the bank, or would a SSP-300 be a temporary solution for a couple of years?

[TomScrut]

I would say you would be better off with a cheaper AV processor if you are spending around a grand. Just because I can't see the 300 holding that sort of value. I wouldn't spend more than around 500 on a 300 because almost nobody wants processors without HDMI anymore

Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk

[JoeTheLion]

I would say you would be better off with a cheaper AV processor if you are spending around a grand. Just because I can't see the 300 holding that sort of value. I wouldn't spend more than around 500 on a 300 because almost nobody wants processors without HDMI anymore

Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk

Thanks for your reply. the problem is, I realized that the ssp-30 is nearly dead; only the 7.1 by-pass inputs work. And music is more important to me than surround. I don't know how to have an AV processor for the surround and the ssp-30 for the music, without having to change cables every time.

[TomScrut]

Another issue you may have with the 300 (depending on how you want to set it up) is that the stereo inputs go through ADC and DAC stages, there is no analogue only bypass apart from the 7.1 input.

Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk

[JoeTheLion]

[QUOTE=TomScrut;623527]Another issue you may have with the 300 (depending on how you want to set it up) is that the stereo inputs go through ADC and DAC stages, there is no analogue only bypass apart from the 7.1 input.

Would a cheaper AV processor (maybe a used but recent one) give the same or acceptably close level of stereo quality compared to the ssp-300? If yes, any suggestions?

[TomScrut]

I would suggest a Marantz like the 8801, but it's 2 channel performance isn't that good. I used to run a stereo pre for stereo and have a processor for surround and have the pre in HT bypass

Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk

[Kal Rubinson]

I would suggest a Marantz like the 8801, but it's 2 channel performance isn't that good.

Of course, its 2 channel performance is the same as its multichannel performance since they use the same device.

I used to run a stereo pre for stereo and have a processor for surround and have the pre in HT bypass.

Fine. You prefer your stereo pre to the Marantz.

[TomScrut]

Of course, its 2 channel performance is the same as its multichannel performance since they use the same device.

Fine. You prefer your stereo pre to the Marantz.

I meant I didn't like it as an analogue pre for music, never used it as a multichannel pre only used the HDMI inputs for surround. Basically I used a Linn Majik DS as both an analogue and digital source with the AV8801 and preferred it doing it via digital. But the analogue route was vastly inferior than going direct to amp with the DS IMO (which of course wasn't an option since I had other sources). So I ended up with a CP-800 which became my digital source anyway.

Whether there is something in the analogue input on the 8801 that isn't in the pre amp for the digital inputs I am unsure. It was the only aspect of its performance that disappointed me.

Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk

[Kal Rubinson]

I meant I didn't like it as an analogue pre for music, never used it as a multichannel pre only used the HDMI inputs for surround.

OK. I was just trying to make a point for clarity. People often distinguish between a device's stereo and multichannel performance when they mean to distinguish between different functions rather than the number of channels used by the function.

[TomScrut]

OK. I was just trying to make a point for clarity. People often distinguish between a device's stereo and multichannel performance when they mean to distinguish between different functions rather than the number of channels used by the function.

I think I get what you mean, as in if I would have said I liked it as an MC analogue pre but not for stereo it would not have made a lot of sense?

Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk