|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
64.12.116.6
In Reply to: Reference Audio Mods Esoteric X-01 SACD Player (Modded) posted by Avocat on March 7, 2007 at 06:14:47:
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.
Follow Ups:
*****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!
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: