|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
[ Asylum Support ] [ Rules ] |
Model: | Esoteric X-01 |
Category: | SACD Player (Modded) |
Suggested Retail Price: | $8,500 (mod only) |
Description: | Battery-driven Esoteric X-01 CD/SACD player |
Manufacturer URL: | Reference Audio Mods |
Review by Quint (A) on March 05, 2007 at 09:56:42 IP Address: 152.163.101.8 | Add Your Review for the Esoteric X-01 |
Despite the recent proliferation of truly excellent modestly priced gear, it seems to me that there is something of an audio “arms race” occurring at the upper echelons. Everywhere I look, I see $50,000 amps, $250,000 speakers, $100,000 turntables, and the list goes on and on. It almost seems that many manufacturers are building increasingly expensive components in a seeming attempt to see who can market the most costly and “exclusive” gear on the planet. Now don’t get me wrong: I’ve owned some RIDICULOUSLY priced stuff, but over the past few years I’ve started to question that approach—both financially and philosophically. First, very few, if any, “silly-expensive” components I’ve heard or owned ever came close to justifying their lofty pricetags. In fact, many just plain sucked—with some of them, I just couldn’t fathom how their designers were getting away with it. It was THAT blatant. But, still, like many other audiophiles, I frequently got distracted by the numbers. If it costs 50k, it’s gotta sound great, right? Well, sometimes, but not always. In fact, more often than not, not.Modding has always been on my radar screen, but until now I can count the number of modded products I’ve owned in 20 years on one hand. All of them performed way above their relatively modest price points, but, still, that lingering “audio snob” in me always attached that eternally damning “good-for-the-money” tag on them, believing that, to attain true SOTA performance, I had to jump into the uber-cash league. Of course, it was hopelessly naïve of me, but all of us take false turns in life, and I’ve taken more than my share, particularly where audio is concerned.
Anyway, I’d been getting increasingly fed up with the “elitist” nature of a lot of the high end—though many could easily accuse me of being part of that elite—not to mention the ever-increasing distance between audio “perfection” and most people’s realities. I got so disillusioned that I recently made a drastic reappraisal of my audio life and made some momentous changes that have left me happier and less anxious than I’ve been in a decade. The RAM X-01 “Unlimited” for review here was a big part of my epiphany.
As my aforementioned disgust at the industry was waxing, I discovered Reference Audio Mods. Located in California and with a satellite office in Warren, Michigan (run by Doug Jesse), RAM had been getting some great buzz for their ability to mod almost anything audio-related and bring it up to near-SOTA performance for a relatively modest investment. (Their modified Oppo DV-970 is a giant killer of epic proportions.)
After getting a feel for founder Kyle Takenaga’s core philosophy—which largely revolves around improving output stages and power supplies—I decided to send my new Esoteric DV-60 to him for surgery. I won’t go into the details of that mod—this review is getting long enough—but, suffice it to say, the transformation was revelatory, putting the DV-60’s performance scarily close to that of my $36,000 Goldmund Eidos Reference 36A, at almost 1/6th the price, and clearly outpacing my pre-Signature Meitner DCC2/CDSD combo. (Unfortunately, I later sold the DV-60 because of a grounding issue that strangely only manifested itself in my room.) I was totally convinced at that point. Of course, the prospect of losing the warranty on a costly piece of electronics gives one serious pause (and well it should), but I was willing to take the risk for these kinds of sonics.
Around this time, I was becoming disenchanted with my Goldmund, whose transport was giving me fits. In addition, I was beginning to seriously question its value, given my experience with the DV-60. I contacted Kyle again to see if we could go even further than the ’60. He quickly said we could, and by a huge margin. He recommended pursuing a used Esoteric X-01 or UX-1 as a platform for a balls-out mod that would eclipse any digital source I’d ever heard. Big words, but by now Kyle had my attention. I managed to pick up a barely used X-01 at a stupidly good price. (I thought about an X-01 Limited, but Kyle said to pass on it, as all of the changes made to that player would be addressed in his mod, and why spend the extra bucks when you don’t have to?)
We discussed several options, but I finally decided on RAM’s “Unlimited” battery mod. Kyle is a firm believer in getting gear off the AC mains for best performance, and having heard battery-driven gear before, I had no reason to doubt him.
The mod is pretty extensive, but here are the highlights:
• Fully battery-driven power supply. The ONLY thing run off AC is the display.
• Many of the regulators were changed to low-noise, low-impedance Invisus PPR2 discrete regulators from Audiocom.
• Analog output stage uses RAM’s reference-level Silver Rock stage from Audio Consulting.
• All DAC chips remain stock, using the four PCM1704s per channel, as Kyle is a big fan of that particular chip.
• I/V conversion is performed by the OPA627 opamps.
• Audiocom Superclock 4 driven with battery power.
• Internal wiring is 24-gauge Audio Consulting silver/cotton wiring.
• Caps are Rubycon ZA/ZL and Audio Consulting Euro oil bypass caps.
• Maple/pine battery chassis for optimal resonance control.The mod took a while to complete—actually, so long I can no longer remember how long :). My first order of business upon receipt was to compare it to my current reference, the mega-buck Goldmund 36A. I was optimistic, but one can never tell—expectations are meant to be shattered. After giving the X-01 a few days of burn-in, I was ready to roll. (I had to act quick, as I had already committed to sell the Goldmund.)
I’ll give you the short version. No contest—on redbook or SACD. The Goldmund, despite costing three times what I had invested in the Esoteric, was hopelessly outclassed. Prior to the X-01, the Goldmund had been the best source I’d ever owned. It clearly bested the widely heralded EMM Labs DCC2/CDSD combo, boasting superior resolution, smoother mids and highs, and an overall naturalness that the Meitner couldn’t match. It also easily handled the Audio Aero Prestige, whose sound I never fully cottoned to. I pretty much thought I was at the top of the digital heap. Well, as ESPN’s Mike Berman is fond of saying, “THAT’S why they play the game!”
As good as the Goldmund was/is, the Unlimited X-01 positively smoked it in every respect. The first thing one notices about the Unlimited is its utter lack of ANY perceivable distortion. At first, I thought it was overly smooth and was rounding off transients and obscuring detail, but the more I listened to it, the more I realized that, in fact, I was hearing more detail than I’d ever heard before, but that it was being presented in the most effortless, free-flowing manner I’d ever encountered. I never realized how much grit and edge I was hearing, even with the best equipment under the best electrical circumstances, until I got the Unlimited. The Goldmund was awesome at etching images in space, but the X-01 made it sound overly etched and thin. With the Esoteric, images had much more body, with absolutely no bloat or “Harlequin” bloom, and with dimensionality that I’ve only heard from the very best analog rigs.
The Unlimited throws an absolutely immense soundstage. When it was in my system, the room had no walls. They were just gone. Soundstaging was a strength of the Goldmund as well, but not like this.
In the low end, the Goldmund was tight and quick, if a little lean. The Unlimited was just as tight and fast, but the bass had considerably more heft and body, with incredible pitch and precision.
The case was similar in the midrange, where the Esoteric had a fuller, weightier presentation, and superior resolution. Where it absolutely destroyed the Goldmund in the mids was in terms of presence. Images simply exploded out of the blackest blacks I’ve ever heard. By “exploded,” I don’t mean to imply that the sound was in any way forward. It really wasn’t. There was just simply so much more energy there, it made the Goldmund sound reticent and two-dimensional in comparison.
Before my recent experiences, I always had a hunch that modding was a viable avenue that I needed to explore a lot further—and I’m glad I did. The Unlimited X-01 is simply the best source, digital or analog, I’ve ever owned. I can’t say with absolute certainty how it compares with everything out there, as I haven’t heard everything out there in my most recent system. But I have owned or auditioned some of the very best, including dCS, MBL, Zanden, Burmester, and the aforementioned EMM, Audio Aero, and Goldmund—I’m going to audition a friend’s new Meitner CDSA in a few weeks, so we’ll see how that goes—but I’ve never been as impressed as I’ve been with the Unlimited. It just presents music in the most unforced (yet lively) and natural manner I’ve ever heard a digital setup manage (only the best analog rigs can compare in this regard). For a total investment of a little over $14,000 ($8,500 of that for the mod), I hesitate to call it a bargain. But considering that it bests rigs costing many multiples of its pricetag, what else would you call it?
Product Weakness: | As with many elite products, the cost is up there, but not nearly as extravagant as other top-tier players |
Product Strengths: | Just about everything I can think of: the absolute epitome of grainlessness; staggering dynamics; unparalleled resolution; smoother than Al Green and Marvin Gaye combined (well, maybe not, but you get the point!) |
Associated Equipment for this Review: | |
Amplifier: | Aria 350XM monoblocks |
Preamplifier (or None if Integrated): | Connoisseur L 4-2SE |
Sources (CDP/Turntable): | Esoteric X-01 |
Speakers: | Von Schweikert VR-9 |
Cables/Interconnects: | Jena Labs Dreamdancer |
Music Used (Genre/Selections): | Rock, pop, some jazz |
Room Size (LxWxH): | 24 x 20 x 7 |
Room Comments/Treatments: | Minimal |
Time Period/Length of Audition: | ~3-4 months |
Other (Power Conditioner etc.): | Jena Labs |
Type of Audition/Review: | Product Owner |
Follow Ups:
Over $10,000, and I have to buy another one if I want to listen to surround? Come on guys.
It was my choice to disable the multichannel, as I have no interest whatsoever in MC, and keeping it would've degraded the two-channel sonics. If/when I sell it, it'll probably be to someone who's only interested in two-channel as well.
*****It was my choice to disable the multichannel, as I have no interest whatsoever in MC, and keeping it would've degraded the two-channel sonics. If/when I sell it, it'll probably be to someone who's only interested in two-channel as well.*****Sure, it was your choice to disable the multi-channel, but based on what you have presented it seems an oddity, a real departure, at best, to take a $14,000 machine, that by all accounts is a top tier two channel and multi-channel performer and then to almost completely gut it to the point that it can no longer perform to its potential which far exceeds any improvements that you can make for an additional $8,000! Because as a near SOTA multi-channel player (and two channel player) the stock Esoteric X-01 has far more potential, currently and in the future, to replicate a live music experience than anything you could add to enhance it’s two channel playback. You, especially, should know that.
And sure it’s your money, but that you were able to obtain the Esoteric X-01, at what you say was “stupidly priced” at $6000, is a singular occurrence not generally available/relevant to the rest of us even if we wanted to take that path.
Given the extensive/costly, almost global work that was done to the Esoteric X-01 I’m curious as to what you think would have been the comparative results if you had done the same level of mods to a former two-channel kingpin such as the Sony SCD-1 or other former two-channel king available for far less money?
Regarding the improvements you hear, you indicate that on the recommendation of RAM you found a used Esoteric X-01 and sent it to them for modding. Did you ever listen to the Esoteric X-01 in your system for any length of time (or at all)? Your comments suggest otherwise. I suspect that sonic changes were made, I really do. But can you be sure of “improvements” given the inordinate amount of time it took for the mods to be completed and that you never lived with the Esoteric making even a modicum of a chance for a meaningful comparison impossible?
In any event, the only two ears on the planet that had any hope of validating improvements you hear are yours. (It’s not like others in this forum or elsewhere can ever audition this one-of-a-kind project and compare it to the Esoteric X-01 or other gear the mod has so readily surpassed). While its true that your ears are the only ears that matter, since you have presented this as review I think it should be noted.
I do credit your comments for providing an informed view to the world of modding. But because you hold your comments out as a “review” and because you are a reviewer I hold what you write to a higher standard. I hope that readers think long and hard before they embark on what clearly is a long (the turnaround time would have been helpful to readers), expensive and circuitous route on a project that can go *seriously* wrong and fail in so many ways. Because in the short and long run a project that like you undertook can be far more costly than the expensive gear you lambaste in your comments.
Hit the nail on the head. He runied a unit that had value. A mod is like buying a new peice of equipment, you may like it and you may not. His value is gone, repairs may to hard to complete etc.In my opinion if you do not like a unit sell it.
I tried mods and yes theymake the unit "sound" different, not always better. If just throwing in better parts would make a unit better, then for the most part everyone would have a great sounding unit, but audio like wine is a personal taste.
The people who do the mods sell their products as they have a right to do, but I would suggest to listen before you make the leap.
At least you know what your money is getting you, not what someone is selling you sound unheard. But then again its yur money.
I appreciate your comments, but let me say a few things.
First, I never said that I bought the X-01 for a "stupidly" expensive price. I said I've OWNED some ridiculously priced gear, which is true. Actually, I got the X-01 used for a steal.As for disabling the MC, I was looking for balls-out performance with as few compromises as possible for two-channel playback. As I said, I have no interest in MC, so I didn't see the point in keeping it. If it didn't affect two-channel performance by keeping it, sure, I would've kept it. As I said in my last post, whoever buys the unit will have to have two-channel as a priority.I might be able to have the MC reinstalled, but I haven't talked with RAM about it. It might not suit your priorities, but I'm mostly interested in the here and now. So sue me.
Yes, I considered going with a former "kingpin" like the SCD-1, but ultimately went with the X-01 because I could get one for an incredibly good price and because of its VRDS-NEO transport mechanism, which I hold in very high regard. I also asked a few audio designer friends of mine what they thought, and all of them thought the X-01 was the preferred choice.
And, yes, I've heard a number of stock Esoterics in my system, though I didn't mention this in the review: DV-50, DV-50S, X-01 Limited, and UX-1. I've also heard the P-03/D-03 and P-01/D-01 combos at people's homes. So I'm pretty familiar with the Esoteric sound. Stock, I'm not a real big fan, hence my decision to mod.
Also, to respond your comments that "in the short and long run a project that like you undertook can be far more costly than the expensive gear you lambaste in your comments," yes, modding can be risky, but if it's done right, it can yield performance that few stock components at anywhere near the price can match. That's my opinion, of course.
BTW, I'm not a professional reviewer (which you seemed to imply), though I did post my thoughts as a review, yes.
Thank you for your comprehensive and informative response to what I admit was a rather sharp critique on my end. (Although I am one not to be litigious) :)And yes, I did believe you were a professionally paid reviewer, to whom I do attach a certain status (yes I do) and responsibility and hold to a different standard. This no doubt was reflected in the tenor of my comments.
Robert C. Lang
I must admit, I get my dander up when I'm critiqued, so I probably made a few sharp comments myself. :)There's no way I could be a professional reviewer. I simply don't write well enough--maybe decently enough for these forums, but no way for print or webzines. I appreciate the flattery, though!
"I simply don't write well enough--maybe decently enough for these forums, but no way for print or webzines."Not a few reviews I've read (and continue to see) in audio print and particularly anyone-can-be-a-reviewer webzines are little more than discursive ramblings more appropriate for, say, a philosophical journal. Others just lose themselves in adjectival generalities that do nothing more than regurgitate audio lingo that in itself is all but meaningless. Just keep in mind what the typical reader wants--a meaningful description and evaluation of the component under review, not a lengthy exposition of what the writer thinks is his or her erudition.
The reviews I've found most valuable follow this general format: A brief paragraph or two describing the product's design philosophy, its function (if, for example, it's a digital player, what formats does it support, etc.), its pertinent features, the quality of its construction (which may or may not be a guide to its reliability), and any quirks that may present ergonomic problems (e.g., hard-to-read display or remote, operational noises, disc loading anomalies, etc.); a list of associated equipment and brief description of the listening environment utilized for listening tests; several paragraphs (and this is the meat of your review) indicating what the reviewer hears while auditioning the component, citing specific recording tracks of specific discs to illustrate the component's rendering of, for example, vocal texture (say, taking a cue from your follow-up listing of discs auditioned for your Esoteric review, on a Dire Straits recording), tonality and timbre, the recording space, frequency extension, and so on--if you present examples from a variety of musical genres, the reader will get a better idea of the component's overall musical performance (in, of course, the context of the system it's connected to); and, finally, an overall assessment of the component's value, including a summary of its perceived strengths and weaknesses.
This is, of course, only my view of what works in reviews. Others may have different ideas and priorities. But I think that if you follow that basic approach when moved to write an equipment evaluation, you'll do better than not a few of the "official" reviewerati.
Forget fancy language. What it really takes is a lot of time devoted to serious listening and more time thinking out and writing down your perceptions of what you've heard, remembering to spell out specifics that illustrate your points. And you've already got a head start on that with your Esoteric mod review and your responses to the feedback you've received in this thread.
First of all, thanks to Quint for the excellent review. I also have been very pleased with my RAM Denon 3910, and can identify with some degree of the benefits he is describing resulting from Kyle's mod philosophies. Modded players are an excellent way to go, and there are some excellent providers to choose from as well as an excellent entry point to high quality digital through the used market of modded components.Yes, associated equipment is extremely important to the review. Another thing which I find extremely beneficial in a review, which is often not included, are descriptions of or comparisons between a component and other available components - whether they belong to the same class or belong in the next class level of refinement. Much more useful than a description of how "musical" a player sounds, or that it "throws a large soundstage" - something you can say about half of the players out there without any method of conveying degree.
I can understand your attachment to multichannel, but personally I haven't heard many MC discs that have convinced me about its superiority. It's a radically different presentation, to be sure, and I have heard a few discs that have been quite impressive, but nothing to cause me to go out and spend close to 100k to expand my system to a level of MC commensurate with my stereo setup. Sorry.
See my post to Alex "Other Consideration"
Robert C. Lang
Robert,What I think is that, since you are in the area, you really need to make the time and come visit me here in Dixon (close to Davis and Sacramento, up 80E).
This will answer many of your questions above.
Other than that, we can say million words here without any real effect or knowledge gain.
I would certainly enjoy that as I have enjoyed immensely when half dozen or so inmates have come here over the years to enjoy music. And notwithstanding what I say below I would do so with an open mind (and ears).
And while I most certainly will take you up on your offer and I'm sure I will be deeply impressed with the sound of your audio system it would be difficult (impossible?) for me to parcel out proper credit to your modded decks vis-a-vis to the other (arguably more important components [including room]). And to that end I don't see a proper correlation between me listening to your system and the specific observations/comments I have offered in response to Quint's comments on his modded Esoteric and his system.
And to up the ante on the conundrum, what if your system was configured with comparable components as a two channel/multi-channel system in which your deck was playing some Michael Bishop mixes in which you could directly compare the two-channel mix with the multi-channel mix of the same recording? And that, really, was the point I was making to Quint. You take that two channel modded Esoteric and compare it directly in an otherwise comparable system to the same model multi-channel Esoteric (or better yet a *modded* multi-channel Esoteric) using those Michael Bishop discs and I'm demonstratively convinced based on considerable personal experience in several high end systems that the two channel playback would not standup sonically to the multi-channel versions of the same recordings in coming closer to replicating a live experience. Isn't that what this quest is all about?
One thing that many audiophiles have in common, which is a casualty of their devotion to medium, whether it is vinyl or digital, is that they are so stuck in stereo much like we as a group were so stuck in mono years ago. Most are completely missing the boat (many in a cavalier manner) to the virtues of well-done multi-channel SACD, of which there are now hundreds of releases. Like most of us I, too, hold on to for dear life to the technology to which I grew up on. I don’t dismiss technology simply because it is old. Nor do I embrace technology simply because it is new. Most often I’m guilty to holding on to it because it *is* old and tried. But to me a *comparable* SACD multi-channel system trumps two channel so (or can) soundly, including SOTA vinyl systems, that it is simply no longer an issue.
Oh, speaking of vinyl? I’m getting closer to making an upgrade in my vinyl playback. Do you have vinyl playback I can also audition?
When you've done multichannel-vs.-two-channel comparisons on the same system, have you done the two-channel audition with the three additional MCh speakers removed from the room? And, if so, have you optimized the speaker positioning for two-channel listening or have you left the front left and right speakers in their MCh position during two-channel playback?I ask because on a friend's MCh rig the two-channel results are significantly different when the MCh speakers and overall MCh alignment are left in place and when the center and rear speakers are removed (on well-recorded material, the two-channel presentation fares much better in the comparison). In my two-channel system I hear a significant difference in playback when: (1) my Maggies are toed-in per the MCh alignment of the month and when they're in their (optimized) straight-out position (and I have to adjust seating position and room treatment for the changed first/second reflection profiles of each speaker configuration); and (2) when I "salt" the front center and/or rear positions with the (mute) stand-mounted Paradigm Mini-Monitors I use in my separate video system. Even with their relatively small footprint they compromise phantom-center imaging and overall ambience, partly, I suspect, because of suckout issues and partly because of their absorption/reflection profiles in the MCh positions. Removing them from the room opens up the presentation sufficiently to make a perceptible difference.
From this experience I've concluded that simply switching from MCh to two-channel playback without modifying the overall placement configuration to fit the playback mode is not a valid comparison. Doing it right may be a pain in the neck (or other part of the anatomy) because of all that has to be moved and rearranged, but it's more revealing of what each mode is actually capable of.
*******When you've done multichannel-vs.-two-channel comparisons on the same system, have you done the two-channel audition with the three additional MCh speakers removed from the room? And, if so, have you optimized the speaker positioning for two-channel listening or have you left the front left and right speakers in their MCh position during two-channel playback?*****
My front main speakers are optimized for two channel listening where they stand. Placement is for the best possible two-channel sound, both in accordance to the manufacturers detailed instructions and with my ears. I had my two channel rig before I added multi-channel. When I added the multi-channel speakers the two main speakers were not moved *one inch* from their previous/present position. In other words, there is no “MCh position for the main speakers. In fact, if I would have had to compromise two-channel speaker placement, in any way, I would have never taken the risk (and it is a risk because of the “room factor”) on multi-channel. I talk about this “Inmate Systems”. The two-channel sound today is as superb as I have ever experienced in my room.There is no evidence that in my room the other three speakers degrade the sound.
On the contrary, placement compromises, where they exist, are with the surround speakers. They are placed within ITU specifications, but are still not optimally placed. Nevertheless, with well recorded SACD multi-channel mixes (amazingly most are very well recorded), largely classical and jazz, the two-channel renditions almost always come up short in comparison multi-channel. The two channel is indeed very good, as good as ever. But the multi-channel, in direct, comparisons is even better.
The other issues you describe, I just don’t have perhaps because I am fortunate to have a large listening room. My front speaker are far from the walls (almost 6 feet from the side walls, more than 7 feet from rear wall). There is no furniture, audio gear, TVs, etc. between the speakers and the listening position. In the context of things the middle speaker is small with respect to cubic feet. But to be sure before I committed to multi-channel I placed a dummy speaker between my mains for listening tests. I was not about two screw up my two channel listening experience. There is no audible degradation caused by the middle speaker.
I should point out that before I opted for multi-channel I made the assumption, right or wrong, that what was good for two-channel was good for multi-channel (not necessarily the other way around), because most of what you directly hear comes from the front two channels. I truly believe that the best two-channel make for the best multi-channel, assuming, of course that the other speakers are placed correctly. Therefore, I was single minded in retaining superb two-channel sound without compromise before I added multi-channel.
*******From this experience I've concluded that simply switching from MCh to two-channel playback without modifying the overall placement configuration to fit the playback mode is not a valid comparison. ****To your credit you recognize that a comparison between multi-channel and two-channel cannot be done fairly in your situation. I have seen many reckless comparisons described in this forum that are done without regard to any criterion. Most often this is to the detriment of multi-channel.
Robert C. Lang
...to front main speaker placement for MCh. Our perceptions differ, however, on which way the reckless comparisons tilt--which you probably gathered from the content of my initial post. Different strokes, I guess.Thanks for the detailed response.
Yeah, my reckless tilt, if I were to have one, would be in favor of two-channel reproduction. But in spite of any handicap that may exist against multi-channel it, nonetheless, almost always prevails when directly compared to two-channel.But what is really interesting is Michael Bishop’s recommended multi-channel set up. See link below. You might recall when Mr. Bishop caused quite a stir in this forum 9 months to a year ago, with this recommendation that deviates quite a bit from ITU rear speaker placement guidelines.
My set-up follows the accompanying diagram (see link) for the front three speakers. My surround speakers are more on the “wings” of the circle while Mr. Bishop’s recommendation calls for more rear placement of the surrounds.
I plan to experiment with the Bishop approach since I can far more readily accommodate the rear channel set-up that his diagram shows. It was really difficult for me to accommodate the surrounds at the optimum 110 degrees. I am currently at about 120 degrees (still within the ITU recommendations).
Robert C. Lang
the "ITU is oh so ninety's" remark and commented on it here at the time.Have fun with your rear speaker placement experiment. Once you've tried it out, would be interested in your comments on what you hear with Telarcs made using the "new" configuration and recordings that assumed ITU placement.
The diagram is useful. I see how Lang has his set up. How is your surround set up differently? How do you move things around for stereo?
...if you're still interested in a diagram, here's mine. :-)
Robert,It would be great if you can drop by for audition!
I am sorry to say but when I go to а live jazz or rock performances, the only thing I hear behind me is the noise from the audience, not music. So I'd like to stick with the "real" experience instead of being surrounded by instruments. The miltichannel would be a bit more realistic when it comes to recreating the actual concert hall acoustics/reverberation with classical recordings, but stereo is also not bad providing this ilusion since the orchestra is still infront of you.
The fact that not many Stereo systems are capbale of providing the "magic" is actually sad and may be the reason why many have gone to, in my opinion, more artifical but impacting multichannel sound. Also, when it comes to regular digital, reproducing massive orchestral passages is much more difficult with Stereo than it is with Multichannel. This is the other reason many prefer Multichannel over Stereo thinking the sound quality is better. This is all my opinion of course! I’ve heard many Multichannel setups which sounded very impressive but have never thought giving up my Stereo system for that.
Sure, I do have a vinyl setup for you to hear. Make sure to bring some LPs.
*****I am sorry to say but when I go to а live jazz or rock performances, the only thing I hear behind me is the noise from the audience, not music.****
See the link below which capsulizes a recent experience I had at a jazz club.
While I am not into rock at all I have been to a few concerts as a videographer. And yes the musicians are in front of you-----most of the time. BUT the loudspeakers for amplification are all around you---they are everywhere! And guess what? Many venues I have been to (rock and non rock) the musicians venture out into the audience. The days of the McGuire Sisters where the artists are tethered to the stage are long gone. Music is far more dynamic than what it used to be. The science of multi-channel SACD helps to capture that dynamic realism far better than two channels. It is far more complex than “two ears…two channels”. Stereo dates back to 1953 science. The superior gear of today has done wonders to max it out, but maxed out it is.And while we are on the subject of music genre there is no question that the type of music one enjoys can influence whether or not they embrace SACD multi-channel. I note that Quint and my tastes differ markedly; there is almost no overlap. I listen to mostly classical (85%), jazz, and R&B. I don’t believe I have ever heard a rock SACD, CD, or vinyl recording on my systems. I understand that there are not many multi-channel SACD rock releases and the ones that do exist are not well done. So, it’s no wonder devotees of the rock genre are less likely embrace multi-channel.
On the other hand, classical music lovers who have multi-channel systems are almost flush with new and very well done classical SACD multi-channel releases.
****So I'd like to stick with the "real" experience instead of being surrounded by instruments. The miltichannel would be a bit more realistic when it comes to recreating the actual concert hall acoustics/reverberation with classical recordings, but stereo is also not bad providing this ilusion since the orchestra is still infront of you. ***
*Exactly* like a well done multi-channel SACD. That is, the majority of the music *is* in front of you. In a well done classical multi-channel SACD you will not hear specific instruments behind you (unless the score calls for that).
***The fact that not many Stereo systems are capbale of providing the "magic" is actually sad and may be the reason why many have gone to, in my opinion, more artifical but impacting multichannel sound. ****
There are exceptions, of course.I have owned systems (such as the Ohm F) or heard systems (MBL reference) that with only two channels come close to “providing the magic”. Others do it also. But such systems are few a very far between and don’t recreate a live type space as well as a comparable high-end multi-channel SACD system.
With regard to “artificial”, all of it, mono, stereo, SACD multi-channel, wear that label. It’s that I have learned that the latter *can* sound less so.
****Also, when it comes to regular digital, reproducing massive orchestral passages is much more difficult with Stereo than it is with Multichannel. This is the other reason many prefer Multichannel over Stereo thinking the sound quality is better. ***Very true. And this goes back to music listening preferences (classical vs. rock, for example). But all music that I have experienced can benefit enormously from well done SACD multi-channel.
***This is all my opinion of course! I’ve heard many Multichannel setups which sounded very impressive but have never thought giving up my Stereo system for that. ***That’s one of the wonderful virtues of multi-channel SACD. You can have your cake and eat it too. My two-channel reproduction has *never* sounded better than it does today. There is no need to give up your stereo.
Hope to see you soon.
Robert C. Lang
you can post this for him?"What I think is that, since you are in the area, you really need to make the time and come visit me here in Dixon (close to Davis and Sacramento, up 80E)."
Next time do it via Email please. It's even a little too blatant for my tastes.
Chris,I have no idea what you call blatant in my post. I have no store front or show room at business location in Dixon, CA. It is my home I’m inviting Robert to.
I knew that Robert is somewhere in the Bay Area so I provided the name of the little town I recently moved to. Since not many know where it is, I also provided Davis and Sacramento as reference points.
Hope all is well!
At this level of performance it's pretty common to find audiophiles with separate systems & rooms for 2CH & HT, as well as 2CH listeners with no interest in multichannel music. From a design perspective I'm sure that multichannel could have been retained, but more expense would be necessary to bring multichannel up to the level of discrete 2CH play.
Quint, CONGRAT'sThanks for the review, it's good to see you realize how much more bang for the buck it is, working with engineers, who mod our machines. I own, and am smiling big time with my NWO 2.5T, I havr owned over 50 sources in the past few years, and this is the finest source I have ever heard, regardless of $$$$. If you are ever in the Chicago area, let's get together.
Steve
BTW thanks for the reco on the Craz4 rack, last year, I LOVE mine.
Hi, Steve:Yeah, I doubt I'll ever buy another stock CD player after hearing what Kyle did with my X-01. Modding (done by the right person, of course) is definitely the way to go.
I'd love to hear the NWO one day. I heard Alex's 3910 last year and was quite impressed.
Glad to hear you like your Craz. Kevin's attention to detail is STUPID!
Take good care.
I'm sold on battery power in all respects but one: warm-up time for a SS CDP. It takes 4-6 hours to warm up my battery-powered CDP to sound its best. Hopefully you've got batteries that are big enough to run all day and through the weekend. It would be trick to have a unit that could stay hot on AC and be switched to batteries for listening sessions.
BTW after SACD down hard for a long time in my modded SCD-1, I've finally fixed it and had my first opportunity to compare SACD to RBCD since replacing the SC3 with a SC4 & the standard Audio Consulting OTP48 silver transformers with cryoed New Silver Rocks. The gap between SACD and RBCD has widened considerably, leading me to suspect that in many players the analog stage is a gating factor in masking much of what SACD can do. I'm curious whether you observed that SACD got much better relative to RBCD after the mods.
Yes, after the mods, I did notice that the gap between SACD and Redbook had widened considerably. IMO, the quality of the output stage is absolutely crucial.
Andy, with mine, redbook sounds like SACD used too, it is frikin amazing what my 20 dac's per channel pull from the redbook, just FABULOUS.
"RBCD...sounds like SACD used too"I assume you are saying that RBCD on the APL 2.5 equals or surpasses SACD on the stock Esoteric. I agree this is certainly possible with a well-modded SACD/RBCD player. But I would guess that comparing formats on the same modded player, SACD beats RBCD hands down.
Several posters have reported that RBCD on the APL 2.5 surpasses very high quality vinyl in some respects. This has been my observation as well with my modded SCD-1. But if this is so, I would think that the further advance of SACD on the modded APL or perhaps the RAM/Esoteric will definitively better even the best vinyl. I don't know whether you or Quint have a TT to make the comparison... but I have proved the the point myself against a Lyra Helikon, Graham 1.5tc, VPI TNT w/flywheel, and BAT P10 and Atma-Sphere MP-1 phono stages.
To extend the point to MC, show me a SACD MC system that is faithful to the musical truth in manner of the best vinyl....and buy it if you can find one for less than 5x the price of a SOTA 2CH SACD or vinyl rig.
Dave:I fully agree with you about a great modified CD player's ability to hang with, and in many cases, better even the best vinyl on many points. At some point, however, the fundamental differences between digital and analog playback will lead most audiophiles to prefer one or the other--I greatly prefer digital--so I think it ultimately comes down to preference. That said, I've had exposure to some of the best turntables out there. I've owned a tricked-out LP12, SME 20 and 30, and Kuzma, among others. I've heard the Continuum, Rockport Sirius II and III, Walker Proscenium, Brinkmann Balance, and a few other uber-tables at various people's homes over the years, and, granted you can't make an apples-to-apples comparison because the systems were all so different from mine, but I'm hearing sound that I think is pretty special and can easily compete with the best vinyl setups out there. Of course, saying that here is tantamount to heresy and deserves a good burning! :)
"At some point, however, the fundamental differences between digital and analog playback will lead most audiophiles to prefer one or the other..."Problem is I think with recent equipment it's gotten tougher to find any "fundamental" differences between the digital & analog. It's as you say a matter of taste and a test of vocabulary to describe the relatives merits. In my set-up, relative to vinyl SACD (and to a lesser extent RBCD) has more throw weight, rock-solid bass control & extension, silkier midrange & treble, bigger envelope-- all the audiophile superlatives. Vinyl does slightly better transients on strings and brass & seems in general a bit more vivid & honest. I can hear the shortcomings of vinyl to a greater degree than digital but the vinyl format is very forgiving. Digital is ruthless and needs to be taken to the highest level to obtain escape velocity from listener fatigue. But the latest CDPs are definitely over the top.
Just trying to see how immune the player is to jitter.
Some still work, but most to a lesser degree than with other players. My Jena Labs 3D-X treatment still works wonders, though. But I don't think it's reducing whatever jitter is inherent in the player itself. Instead, I think it's reducing jitter by allowing the laser to read the disc more precisely. That's a REALLY poor layman's attempt at an explanation, so please don't tear me apart! :)
Why do so many SACD players seem to have transport problems? What sort of problems did your $36k player have? Just curious. Thanks for a well-written review.
I'm not sure why so many SACD transports have noise and reliability problems. The only that really doesn't is Esoteric's VRDS-NEO. Still, it's not whisper-quiet, either, but you have to have your ears close to hear it.The problems with the Goldmund were twofold: (1) You could actually hear the transport from a few feet away. IMO, that is absolutely unacceptable on a 36k player. I sent the unit back to Goldmund, which replaced the transport. The noise lessened a bit, but I could still hear it when the room was perfectly quiet. (2) When the player moved to the next track on a CD, there was an audible clicking noise, as if the transport was trying to find the next track. It was quite annoying. Anyway, I quickly tired of it and decided to move on.
In my experience, Pioneer and Philips SACD mechanisms are fairly noisy. Even when a manufacturer modifies them to quiet them down (such as EMM, Audio Aero, and others), they're still pretty audible--at least to my bat ears. :)
In my haste to bang out my “epic,” I obviously left out some key bits. Here’s a list of the music I listened to:Dire Straits: “Dire Straits”
Dire Straits: “Making Movies”
Peter Wolf: “Sleepless”
Police: “Outlandos d’Amour” (SACD)
Moody Blues: “Days of Future Passed” (SACD)
Pink Floyd: “Dark Side of the Moon” (SACD)
REM: “Murmur”
Randy Newman: “The Randy Newman Songbook”
Norah Jones: “Feels Like Home”
Miles Davis: “Kind of Blue” (SACD)
Kinks: “Misfits” (SACD)On well-recorded vocals, such as on the Norah Jones, Dire Straits, and Randy Newman discs, the Unlimited did an uncanny job of capturing vocal textures, reproducing them with a degree of smoothness and grainlessness, not to mention presence, that was pretty amazing. It also was resolving enough to capture little inflections that were lost on both the Goldmund and other top-tier players I’ve owned.
On rockier fare, such as “Outlandos d’Amour,” “Misfits,” and “Sleepless,” the Unlimited showed its dynamic (macro- and micro) muscle, capturing kick drums and cymbal work with stunning power, speed, and clarity.
The only jazz I used was “Kind of Blue.” Jazz isn’t my forte, so I may be way out of my depth here, but the brass had a burnished “glow” I equate with tube gear, but at the same time, it also possessed a “Jaws”-grade bite when called for. Some of Miles’ blares really took me by surprise with their energy.
Hopefully this gives readers some needed context. If not, hey, I tried. :)
Does they modded Esoteric X-01 still retain its multi-channel capabilities? And if so do all channels benefit from the mod and did you listen in multi-channels?
Robert C. Lang
My unit does two-channel only--I told Kyle to dispense with the multichannel, as I didn't need it--so I can't comment on its MC ability.
Ah! The inference is, then, that without your expressed instructions to Kyle to do away with it multi-channel would have been retained. Is that a reasonable assumption?
Robert C. Lang
> > Ah! The inference is, then, that without your expressed instructions to Kyle to do away with it multi-channel would have been retained. Is that a reasonable assumption?I *THINK* so. It's been a while since we discussed the particulars of the build, so it might be worth a call or email to Kyle to confirm.
I'd have been interested in what you listened specifically to (i.e., which CD's and SACD's) in order to get some idea of how the modded unit reproduced, for example, large orchestral ensemble, jazz combo, male and female vocal, rock, etc. In short, a frame of reference that would allow your readers to more easily relate to your evaluation of the mod (e.g., in your comments and soundstaging and imaging) and its comparison with the Goldmund.Not to pick on you. You obviously took some time to put your review together, and I appreciate your sharing it with us. But I have the same problem with some online audio "magazine" reviews that lack real-world-listening context which would make them more useful guides in determining what equipment might actually be worth a listen.
That said, glad you're enjoying your mod.
...purported to be a review of the new Korg MR-1 DSD recorder but never once mentioned any listening or the sound....essentially was a re-write of the manufacturers marketing material. Even for EQ it was bad...the most laughable "review" I have ever read.
Harry
Lots of comparative statements and audiophile jargon in your review. It seems that the goal of the review was to compare it to the Goldmund player and, if so, you apparently have succeeded at least to your own subjective satisfaction. However, after reading through it I have no idea if this player actually allows violins, cellos, pianos (name the acoustic instrument of choice) to sound like the real thing. Oh well.
Guess I can't satisfy everyone. The review was getting long enough, so I got distracted by that and left some things out. To answer your question: Yes, it makes instruments sound more real and present than any other source I've owned. Does it substitute for a real violin, cello, etc.? Of course not. But audio, however, good is nothing but a reproduction, anyway.
Nice review. I've got the very same RAM/Audio Consulting/Audiocom kit in my battery-powered SCD-1. RAM's & Audio Consulting's focus on getting the most out of batteries and a passive transformer output stage is unique among the modders. It would be interesting to compare your unit to an APL 2.5, where the signature mod is the substitute DAC array. This would get to the heart of the matter about what makes the soul of the machine.
You made some good points in the opening paragraph that weigh on the mind of most audiophiles these days - why are the prices going up so fast?I've had a modified Sony XA777ES for close to 5 years. Mine was done by Ric Schultz of EVS, who knows and respects Kyle's work.
Kyle has been known to be a bit too gung-ho in the past (like replacing all the capacitors on a Sony digital board with Black Gates). But I think his association with the folks at Audio Consulting is keeping him in check now. And the views of AC are obviously shared by Kyle. I do think the parts coming from Audio Consulting also have a lot to do with the sound you are getting.
I guess there's just one machine out there that you need to compare yours with - the APL NWO 2.5T.
Regards,
Geoff
I would love to compare the Unlimited to the APL, but, alas, I don't know anyone around here who has one. Maybe one day. :)
I've sent you a private message. Nice review! Congrats!"I would love to compare the Unlimited to the APL...."
Very nice of you! I'd love to do that too!
"..., but, alas, I don't know anyone around here who has one."
Where are you located?
"Maybe one day. :)"
Just let me know when. :-)
Regards,
Alex
Thanks for the great review. I am seriously considering using RAM to modify an Esoteric X-03se. Do you know if RAM warrantees their work? For how long?
Kyle and Doug do warranty all their work, though. Might we worth an email to confirm. Thanks for the kind words.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: