I hadn't come across this until today and, albeit well above my price point, it looks pretty close to the single-box, hi-resolution solution of my computer audio dreams. 32-bit DACs; USB, optical and coax digital ins; native DSD, DSD-to-PCM, PCM-to-DSD; 32-bit digital volume control.

Here's the marketing fluff. Let's hope this starts a trend!

This must be an updated SA-50? The one I heard didn't have digital inputs or USB. I also didn't think it sounded that good; far too unnatural tonally.

Nice. I wish I liked the Esoteric sound better though. Trend is good for sure.

Edited April 19, 200917 yr by Voltron

I also didn't think it sounded that good; far too unnatural tonally.

This was my impression as well, though I can't remember which piece of Esoteric gear I heard. (It all looks pretty much the same.) I wonder if it can be modded. Maybe they need a new output stage.

Esoteric and EMM labs stuff has always sounded too dry and digital to my ears. Detail retrieval is phenomenal, but I'm always chasing musicality.

EAR Acute, Audio Aero Capitole SE etc. is the direction that seems to work best for me. Very musical players. Reimyo CDP-777, AMR CD-77.....notice a trend here?

Detail retrieval is phenomenal

I dunno about that. They seem to retrieve detail that couldn't have possibly been there to start (I don't mean that technically, I mean that it *seems* that way), especially in the 4kHz+ range. I'm a detail-head don't get me wrong, but the a lot of these newer digital devices seem to pull it out of thin air (well, I suppose that's somewhat close to the truth). I've just confused myself re-reading this.... anyways, what I mean is the hyper-detail is not natural at all, in my opinion.

Yeah, that would be called "compression".

Nice. I wish I liked the Esoteric sound better though.

Yup. I remember comparing my Exemplar to Mike's old Esoteric (we got them right about the same time), and was quite surprised on easily I could pick out the differences, all in favor of the Exemplar in redbook, though I thought the Esoteric was a tad better, but not dramatically (I questioned if I was hearing differences or imaginging them) in sacd.

I dunno about that. They seem to retrieve detail that couldn't have possibly been there to start (I don't mean that technically, I mean that it *seems* that way), especially in the 4kHz+ range. I'm a detail-head don't get me wrong, but the a lot of these newer digital devices seem to pull it out of thin air (well, I suppose that's somewhat close to the truth). I've just confused myself re-reading this.... anyways, what I mean is the hyper-detail is not natural at all, in my opinion.

That's why I would never own a stock Esoteric machine. \ It's the same deal with a lot of headphones too.

I dunno about that. They seem to retrieve detail that couldn't have possibly been there to start (I don't mean that technically, I mean that it *seems* that way), especially in the 4kHz+ range. I'm a detail-head don't get me wrong, but the a lot of these newer digital devices seem to pull it out of thin air (well, I suppose that's somewhat close to the truth). I've just confused myself re-reading this.... anyways, what I mean is the hyper-detail is not natural at all, in my opinion.

As Dusty pointed out that is the compression that's in the data on the disc. Annoying as hell sometimes? Yes. The CD players fault? No.

As Dusty pointed out that is the compression that's in the data on the disc. Annoying as hell sometimes? Yes. The CD players fault? No.

I don't attribute this to compression really, as I've done A/B comparisons and it's never been the source material.

I don't attribute this to compression really, as I've done A/B comparisons and it's never been the source material.

Hrm, I do not see how AB comparisons, even if blind, eliminate the possibility that one player is revealing the compression on the disc and another is not. You are essentially dealing with a non-linearity between the player effect and compression effect. You actually need to compare players and source material (compressed and non-compressed) simultaneously and estimate the interaction effect, which then indicates non-linearity of effects (i.e. each player is resolving the compression artifacts differently).

That being said, I have been underwhellmed by the quality, or lack thereof, of the output stage on esoteric players. It looks like they are using a new output stage on the SA-50 compared to the DV-50 (and SA-60 for that matter). Does that look like the case to others, or am I letting my wishes get the better of me?

Edited April 20, 200917 yr by morphsci

Hrm, I do not see how AB comparisons, even if blind, eliminate the possibility that one player is revealing the compression on the disc and another is not. You are essentially dealing with a non-linearity between the player effect and compression effect. You actually need to compare players and source material (compressed and non-compressed) simultaneously and estimate the interaction effect, which then indicates non-linearity of effects (i.e. each player is resolving the compression artifacts differently).

ok, in theory you may be correct, but why the hell would I want a player that does this to like 99% of my source material? I'm not going to get a whole new library of material that sounds better with my new shiny player... Also, I find it odd that this so-called "compression" seems to happen with the same DAC chips, over and over.

ok, in theory you may be correct, but why the hell would I want a player that does this to like 99% of my source material? I'm not going to get a whole new library of material that sounds better with my new shiny player... Also, I find it odd that this so-called "compression" seems to happen with the same DAC chips, over and over.

Not disagreeing with you, about that nor saying that you necessarily should like it. Just pointing out that the source of the long-term problem may not be in the player. Also I don't think the compression "happens" with the DAC chips as much as certain DAC chips reveal the compression better. Does that mean they sound better? Nope, not at all, especially if, unfortunately, a good chunk of the source material out there, is not up to the resolving power of some DACs.

ok, in theory you may be correct, but why the hell would I want a player that does this to like 99% of my source material? I'm not going to get a whole new library of material that sounds better with my new shiny player... Also, I find it odd that this so-called "compression" seems to happen with the same DAC chips, over and over.

Well it could be something else too. You can check and see if you have some well recorded and mastered stuff without any real compression (i.e. the disc is really quiet) going on then you can see if it's still there. It's part of the joys of the loudness wars.

Maybe that DAC chip has a problem in the digital filter. I doubt it.

It's my experience that most of the time it's in the recording and when it's made apparent by being correctly captured by the headphones or DAC or whatever people call it unrealistic (or etched or whatever) (which it very well might be).

You should still optimize your system to sound good to you on the material you listen to on it.

You should still optimize your system to sound good to you on the material you listen to on it.

No argument there

You should still optimize your system to sound good to you on the material you listen to on it.

No argument from me on that.

I disagree with all of you just for the hell of it.

I said Good Day to you, Sir!

Just for the record, I didn't mean to imply it was in the source material -- it could be anywhere in the signal chain.

As Dusty pointed out that is the compression that's in the data on the disc. Annoying as hell sometimes? Yes. The CD players fault? No.

Would you consider music on the DCC label to be well mastered? I think it is, and it still didn't sound good on the SA-50. Maybe SACDs are another matter, I only tried RBCD.

Then again it could be the Esoteric being true to the RB 44.1 KHz sampling rate in which case it will make any RBCD sound like shit anyway

Edited April 20, 200917 yr by deepak

Would you consider music on the DCC label to be well mastered? I think it is, and it still didn't sound good on the SA-50. Maybe SACDs are another matter, I only tried RBCD.

Then again it could be the Esoteric being true to the RB 44.1 KHz sampling rate in which case it will make any RBCD sound like shit anyway

That graphic is a crock of shit because that signal would have to be down in the -90db range to be that small. I don't own and DCC stuff but my impression is that lots of "well mastered" stuff has compression issues.

All I'm saying is that it's very likely don't like the data that's on the CD not that it's more accurate to the original source. A whole lot of people hear what you hear and don't like it but it's not the CD players fault it's the mastering. If your player smooths this and you like it fine but it's not more accurate to the recorded media (I can't speak to the original source material).

Compressors essentially are soft clipping systems that let you crank the volume without clipping hard but what they do is introduce some weird shit that generally annoys people. I wish the music business would just not use them but if given my pick I'd rather hear their effects and learn to ignore it than to not know they are there in the first place.

Edited April 20, 200917 yr by Dreadhead

Just for the record, I didn't mean to imply it was in the source material -- it could be anywhere in the signal chain.

What? I assumed you meant that the instruments compressed the music

Would you consider music on the DCC label to be well mastered? I think it is, and it still didn't sound good on the SA-50. Maybe SACDs are another matter, I only tried RBCD.

Then again it could be the Esoteric being true to the RB 44.1 KHz sampling rate in which case it will make any RBCD sound like shit anyway

Did you hear the SA-50? Or was it the older SA-60 or DV-60 or even older DV-50? Just wondering as the SA-50 is pretty damn new. Oh, and the DCC stuff I have seems to be very well mastered and isn't overly compressed (in general).

Edited April 20, 200917 yr by morphsci