|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
98.197.210.209
I have had a Sony SCD-1 for several years now. Never a complaint -UNTIL I heard it versus a Meridian G08.2 on RBCD. The Meridian sounded better in many respects to many sets of ears. However, I have many titles in RBCD and SACD and SACD wins (obviously IMHO). Getting to the point: I just took an Esoteric DV-60 in trade for one of my power conditioners (no shameless plugs unless you want them). The SCD-1 bested the Esoteric in soundstage, bass extension, pace, fullness of sound in both RBCD and SACD.
I spoke with a reviewer who will be handling one of my products and he has a Sony SACD that has the VSEI mods - Level 6, I think. He says that those who listen to comparisons with other mega high-end units usually say his is the better unit.
Questions:
1. Why does an at least 10-year old technology sound better to most here than a new SOTA universal player that Stereophile has just given a Class A rating to?
2. Does anyone have any hands on-ears on experience with the VSEI mods?
Thanks and I still love vinyl. ;)
Dave
Follow Ups:
... and he is apparently no longer selling his Esoteric DV-60.
Silver Circle's Audiogon ad, 10:39 PM, EST, April 6, 2009:
"For sale is a Sony SCD-1 immaculately kept and cared for. I bought this several years ago from a Sony dealer as refurbished. It has had NO problems and continues to play flawlessly. There is one ding in the lower right corner of the unit that was present when I purchased the unit. It didn’t make any difference to me, though it may to you.
For the asking price I will include the PayPal fees and shipping within the continental US. Included are the remote, Sony box, and a copy of the manual in English. The unit will be shipped in its own box and then double-boxed in one of the boxes we use for our power conditioners."
What happened, Silver Circle? I hope the fact that you are now selling your (formerly) beloved stock Sony SCD-1 means that you finally gave the Esoteric DV-60 a chance to break in and that you discovered the Esoteric crushes the Sony SCD-1.
Maybe he's found a Meridian CDP? :0)
I've just revisited this thread and you've received quite a bit of stick from various posters, when in fact you are right on the nail in most respects.
The original poster asks "why does an at least 10-year old technology sound better to most here than a new SOTA universal player that Stereophile has just given a Class A rating to?"
Despite the quality of the SCD-1's build and transport, the answer is probably as you point out - that one is fully broken in while the other isn't, and even if it isn't entirely down to burn in, the fact remains that the comparison was meaningless.
How would owners of modified SCD-1s have felt if the poster I've linked to had compared his player to a fully burned in Esoteric for instance as it stood at the time he wrote his impressions of the sound?
Best Regards,
Chris redmond.
I own an unmodded SCD-1. I had it in my system (at that time consisted of MF A3CR pre and power, and Dynaudio Confidence C4) for the best of five years, and could never enjoy what I was listening to. OK the bass on SACD was exceptional as was resolution, but in my set up it was an unbalance sound. I am enjoying the YAMAHA CD-S2000 much more than the SCD-1, always in my room and system...
I KNOW I have both!
Through the Sony the reproduction was certainly HIFI but 'lifeless'-inorganic. Sure there's pride of ownership, but that won't make sound interesting, though pschologically it helps.
No offense intended to any member but that is my personal experience, which in the past included players like Marantz, Meridian, Pioneer, and Audio Synthesis.
This thread is about Upgraded SCD-1/SCD-777ES sound v's Esoteric DV-60 sound, I thought.
And there is a HUGE difference between stock and Upgraded SCD-1/SCD-77ES sound, check the reviews on my site, and on this forum.
If you prefer the sound of your Yamaha CD player, then why not sell your big SONY, we have clients from all over the world looking for them in good condition to have them Upgraded.
Regards, Allen (Vacuum State)
Dave,
I answered you via private email, but with so many replies here, I would like to answer your question publically.
SONY designed the SCD-1/SCD-777ES to be a major showcase for SACD. They spared no money or research in making it the very best SACD player they knew how. SACD is a bitstream technology, so the SCD-1/SCD-777ES uses bitstream technology throughout, not converting the bitstream signal to PCM for processing as do many other players.
They also built special DAC chips for SACD, although in our opinion they are excessively complex and do not help the overall sonics of the player.
I heard what DSD/SACD can sound like at a recording studio around 2001 off hard disc, and immediately bought a basic SONY player to experiment with - a XB940 - a unit not sold in the USA. It didn't sound anything like what I had heard in the studio so the hunt was on for what was wrong.
The key problem was SONY's usage of what I consider a junk audio section loaded with opamps. Once we found that all of that could be simply ommitted, and a signal taken DIRECTLY from the digital section, even bypassing the DAC, the sound really cleared up.
Then we obtained a SCD-777ES and found it's audio section was far worse than that in the baby player, with some 11 opamps for the signal to fight through, in the most overly complex setup I had ever seen. Like they take a balanced bitstream digital signal, put it through two DACs, then into a balanced to unbalanced converter (opamps), filter the ultrasonics out (opamps) and then convert BACK again to balanced with more opamps!!!!!
So we made a new audio section that includes the DAC function, the filter function and the cable driver function all with just three transistors (KISS!) and that was the basis of our Upgrades. Since then we've added a far better clock (TerraFirma) and many other things which all add to the result.
Joined with SONYs superb bitstream digital section, the reviews speak for themselves, and to date we know of no new machine that comes close.
Regards, Allen
1. Why does an at least 10-year old technology sound better to most here than a new SOTA universal player that Stereophile has just given a Class A rating to?
As already mentioned, Sony designed the SCD-1 to be a flagship for SACD and were prepared to make a loss in the anticipation that the superiority of SACD over CD was clearly and obviously demonstrated; Sony weren't selling the SCD-1, they were using the SCD-1 to sell SACD.
Therefore the SCD-1 was built to a standard rather than a price, and no matter how much we read about the latest chips, the latest upsampling/oversampling technology or vastly improved jitter specs, SACD/CD replay is primarily governed by power supplies, rigid construction, parts quality, isolation and all the things that cannot be done as well on the cheap.
Ironically, perhaps the one mainstream manufacturer who does still maintain high standards in these respects is Esoteric/TEAC, although the DV-60 isn't in the same league as Esoteric's own flagship player which uses the peerless VRDS transport mechanism.
Someone such as Allen Wright, when given a platform like the SCD-1, will no doubt be able to work wonders as his mods will have evolved over the years so any money spent will go in exactly the right area to give most improvement, and I'd suggest that anyone who owns a stock SCD-1 should consider having it modded by a competent engineer before even considering 'upgrading' to a more modern machine.
Best Regards,
Chris redmond.
Dave,
As the designer of the Vacuum State Upgrades, let's see if I can answer your main question.
The original SONY SACD players were not made down to a price, the SCD-1 must have cost SONY far more than they sold it for - it was a "loss leader" to get SACD well known and well thought of. It's quality of engineering would have cost at least $20,000 if some audiophile company like ML or Wadia had been selling it.
But they really goofed in the audio section which they lifted from a BurrBrown application note, the digital sections were brilliant, and really SACD focussed, but the whole audio section was HUGELY overcomplex, with an originally balanced signal being converted to unbalanced and then back to balanced again, as one small example.
We investigated just how much of this complexity could be removed and still have it keep working, we found we could remove it all (!!) and it sounded better with every stage we eliminated. But it needed some filtering to eliminate the ultrasonic noise present in a SACD signal, and it also needed the capability to effectively drive the output interconnect cable. So we designed a replacement audio module, which replaces 2 DACs and some 9 opamps with three signal handling transistors (and a super powersupply), extends the bandwidth to the promised 100kHz, and sounds radically better, as evidenced by the reviews you can find on my website.
Later, much more work has been done on digital noise filtering, and recently we have introduced a vastly better clock, which we call the UberClock.
No machine SONY (or anyone) has since made has been so focussed on handling SACD as well as the SCD-1, they are all built down to a price with bought in chips to act as the DACs etc.
More info can be found on my website, but the reviews tell the results.
As you can tell, we are proud of the changes we have been be able to make in this basically wonderful machine, and if a SCD-1 at Level 7 isn't the very best SACD player at any price, I haven't heard the one that's better. No stock machine is, that's for sure.
Regards, Allen (Vacuum State)
Allen;
Why are you and others not mentioning the Sony SCD-777ES the SCD-1's
sister under the case's twin? It sells for less on the used market and
here was an opportunity to give it the respect it deserves!
Regards
Karltoo
Karl,
I have many times suggested the SCD-777ES over the SCD-1 for reasons of cost. They are indentical under their skins and sound the same.
But yes, the SCD-777ES can be had for around 30% less than it's fancy looking brother, and they both Upgrade the same.
Depends if the looks are worth the extra $$...
Regards, Allen (Vacuum State)
Allen,
How does a modified unit perform on Red Book CD? Does the SCD-777ES & SCD-1 convert the PCM Signal to DSD? What Gives can you provide me with some info. I am thinking of purchasing a SCD-777es and having it upgraded, but I would also like to have a reference quality player for the Red Book CD format.
thanks,
Johnny
Most reorts we get say the RBCD performance is improved EVEN more than the SACD performance.
You would have to read some of the reviews on our website, and look for the many reviews here on HiRez forum.
No, they do not convert the RBCD PCM signal to pure DSD, but they do convert it to bitstream, which is sort of the same thing, just not a 2.8MHz. Our Upgrades work on the complete signalpath, so both SACD and RBCD are greatly improved.
I believe an Upgraded SCD-1 or (better still) a SCD-777ES is the best sounding player I have heard, and certainly the best sonic hit for the $$ available.
The only better RBCD sound Ihave heard is from an equally Upgraded Esoteric DV-50 we did for the president of Gensisi Speakers, but it's SACD performance wasn't as good as the SONY. They both have excellent transports and great engineering, I put that difference down to the design philosophy, the Esoteric using a chip set thathas PCM as the focus, with DSD/SACD as a sideline. The SONYs are SACD forcussed.
Regards, Allen (Vacuum State)
Allen, have you heard Tim de Paravicini's EAR Acute tubed RBCD player with upsampling? I have a 777ES I bought new when the price dropped to $1500 with Level 6+ balanced outputs which I listen to SACD on. I intend on asking Warren to equip mine with the UBER Clock. The "Acute" is a totally redesigned top of the line Arcam player. Is the UBER Clock universal and able to be used with multiple players?
> > have you heard Tim de Paravicini's EAR Acute tubed RBCD player with upsampling?
No, never had the chance. I guess it will be in the Munich Hi-End show next month.
> > I have a 777ES I bought new when the price dropped to $1500 with Level 6+ balanced outputs which I listen to SACD on. I intend on asking Warren to equip mine with the UBER Clock < <
That will make a wonderful improvement.
> > The "Acute" is a totally redesigned top of the line Arcam player. Is the UBER Clock universal and able to be used with multiple players? < <
If they need the same oscillator frequency, then yes. If they need different oscillator frequencies, then it would require quite a bit of messing around to change the oscillator frequency. Your big SONY needs a 45MHz frequency, I have no idea of what the ARCAM needs.
Regards, Allen (Vacuum State)
Thanks for the info Allen. I would not still own my 777 if it wasn't for your mods.
Dr. Roberts
Just wait till you get the UberClock...!
Regards, Allen (Vacuum State)
To answer your question #1, performance of a CDP is to a great degree determined by the quality of power supplies and analog section. Evolution of digital technology is fun to talk about, but in the overall scheme this is mostly marketspeak-- most players remain compromised in other critical areas. That's why a well-modded SCD-1 still competes with the latest top CDPs.
I fully agree with Dave. I have compared my modded SCD-1 (done by myself) to the Esoteric DV-60 and my SCD-1 sound much much better to me and to other people with demanding ears who has witness the comparison.
I have said this in previous post, the SCD-1 when properly modded can sound many times better than any CDP costing over 15K.
"I have said this in previous post, the SCD-1 when properly modded can sound many times better than any CDP costing over 15K."
So you've heard every CDP over 15K in the same system?
If you haven't your statement is clearly misleading and false.
My own CDP is almost at that price level and competes with the multi-box Zanden costing a great deal more, but you are saying a modded SCD-1 can sound - and here's the critical bit - "MANY times better" than even the Zanden?
Where did you hear the Zanden?
Best Regards,
Chris redmond.
“So you've heard every CDP over 15K in the same system?”
No I have not heard every CDP costing over 15K but I have compared many on my own system including the multibox Zanden against my modded SCD-1. BTW to my knowledge the number of players in the market costing over 15K is not that big.
I am not in the business of selling upgrades, I do this because I have the skills to do it, and the reason for sharing my experience is to make people aware that it is possible to have a great sound CDP without spending ridicules amounts of money. Sure for some equipment you will pay for beautiful design (there is nothing wrong with that) but to me that is not that important, I care more for the sound quality.
What kind of player do you have?
YES, the SCD-1 when properly modded can sound MANY TIMES better than the Zanden which is a beautiful looking design player and most of the cost has to do with that.
Bottom line, if you are happy with your CPD that is all that you should care about.
Best regards,
Felix
"No I have not heard every CDP costing over 15K".
That's all I wanted to know, and confirms you should have written that your SCD-1 sounded better than every player you'd heard, not every player on the market.
"BTW to my knowledge the number of players in the market costing over 15K is not that big."
So you don't even know what players there are over 15K, but you know what they sound like?
"What kind of player do you have?"
My system is registered so is accessible to anyone who wants to click on my 'R'. For the record it's an AMR CD-77 which your modified SCD-1 is 'many times better than', whether you've heard it or not.
Best Regards,
Chris redmond.
“So you don't even know what players there are over 15K, but you know what they sound like?”
Sounds to me that you don’t think that a well modded SCD-1 can sound better than your AMR CD-77. Well are you ready for this…
I first heard this player at the Munich high-end show and I happen to have a good customer relationship with a local dealer who sells this CDP. When I first heard this player I thought that it had very good sound but when I learned the retail price I questioned the value so I borrowed a demo unit from the local dealer and I hate to be the one o give you this news BUT
There is no F.. way this player worth the asking price. And YES I compared to my modded SCD-1, my SCD-1 outperformed the AMR on the following,
- Better resolution
- Better sound stage
- Better sound detail
- Better dynamics and button line a more natural sound (voices sound very natural on my SCD-1)
If you really really want to convince yourself, I welcome you to visit me in Germany and bring your player with you (you are not that far).
Cheers,
Felix
Hi Felix,
What happened - cat got your tongue?
In future keep your made up crap to yourself and don't waste mine or anybody elses's time.
Best Regards,
Chris redmond.
For someone who wrote "bottom line, if you are happy with your CPD that is all that you should care about", you do seem to spend a lot of time posting that your player is many times better than other players - which you haven't heard.
"so I borrowed a demo unit from the local dealer and I hate to be the one o give you this news BUT".
Well, I said to my friend Max who was taking an interest in this discussion that you would definitely say that you had compared your SCD-1 to the AMR CD-77 and that the SCD-1 was 'many times' better.I win.
That being said, I may be in Germany this next month and if so will pay you a visit, so please email me your address and I will make arrangements.
If you also let me know the local dealer who loaned you the AMR CD-77 I will see if they are willing to allow the same comparison.Could I also trouble you to tell me when you modded your SCD-1?
Best Regards,
Chris redmond.
Edits: 03/29/09
My modded SCD-1 equals or surpasses the DCS stack and Zanden player that I heard demoed through VTL electronics and Escalante Fremont speakers by Sound by Singer. My thinking is that above a certain level of performance, auditions outside one's own system are primarily helpful in judging speakers and source. It's hard to get RBCD "perfect", which makes it easier to identify differences between players when away from home.
"My thinking is that above a certain level of performance, auditions outside one's own system are primarily helpful in judging speakers and source."
I can see your thinking, though for me it is impossible to make any meaningful comparison or evaluation in such circumstances as all it is possible to do is compare one system to another.
You say that your SCD-1 "equals or surpasses the DCS stack and Zanden player" you heard, but unless you place your SCD-1 in the same system any comparison is impossible. All you can say is that your system using the SCD-1 sounds better to you, although I admit is only human nature to do what you have done.
Consider that if you were primarily interested in the speakers, you would have come to the conclusion that your speakers were better than the Escalante Fremonts you heard, and if you were primarily interested in the amplification you would have come to the conclusion that your amps were better than the VTL electronics you heard. :0)
Whenever I've been interested in a source component, be it SACD or CD, I've always either taken my source to use in the other player's system, or friends have brought there source over to my place. It's easier with source components obviously as amps and especially speakers aren't quite so manageable.
Even if you'd heard them all in the system though, I wouldn't have even raised an eyebrow at you suggesting that your SCD-1 is better than or equal to the Zanden or DCS stack. I might disagree if I heard the same comparison, but then again I might agree - who knows.
What had me rolling my eyes was when I read that the poster in question was saying the SCD-1 was 'many times' better than 'any' player over 15K when I know this isn't true, and that the poster won't have heard every player over 15K.
Let's restrict ourselves to making comments about our experiences or expectations, rather than passing off expectations as experiences or facts.
Best Regards,
Chris redmond.
"I wouldn't have even raised an eyebrow at you suggesting that your SCD-1 is better than or equal to the Zanden or DCS stack"
I remember a few years back that the Zanden got a rave in a rag even though one of the outputs was wired in reverse polarity. Funny how such flawed reviewing can be accepted at face value, yet when another box is trashed people cry because it is their precious toy.
You've lost me - might be the glass of wine I've just had?
Which box is being 'trashed' and who is crying because the box is their precious toy?
Best Regards,
Chris redmond.
Just finished Stereophile April Recommended Components issue-- my last issue in a three-year subscription. Suffice to say that Michael Fremer's writing is the only thing that leads me to pause before letting the subscription expire for good. His tour of Vegas emptied out except for rows of $200K components at CES makes the audio industry read like Madoff before the fall. It's a good time to get off a runaway train.
I agree that comparisons involving multiple variables are difficult. But if one spends enough time with RBCD, it becomes apparent that most players-- even very expensive ones-- have difficulties. Some of the differences between players are a yin/yang thing(comparison in the same system of DCS and Zanden was a good illustration of this point.) But few players(even these two) get it all right: resolution & transparency without the compromise of dryness, organic unsynthetic analog-like sound without the compromise of HF roll-off, dynamic scale without the compromise of aggression & fatigue. The well-modded SCD-1 gets all these things right. Whether listening at home or in hi-fi emporium, if things are not right at source then it carries all the way through. Garbage in, garbage out.
One reasonable way to make comparisons between digital sources across systems is to use good vinyl as a benchmark. There is less variability between excellent vinyl front ends than there is between top RBCD players. Few owners of high end vinyl front ends will maintain that their RBCD approaches the level of their vinyl. But if your ears tell you otherwise-- that you're approaching convergence between the formats, then you know you're hearing great digital. The modded Sony approaches this level.
"Few owners of high end vinyl front ends will maintain that their RBCD approaches the level of their vinyl. But if your ears tell you otherwise".
Well, I don't have a vinyl front end and my reference is how natural a source component can make a system sound, not how 'vinyl' which is usually taken to mean 'analogue'.
I've heard digital sources which sound natural and analogue, yet when the digital source is not as good as it can be it manifests itself in a sound which is far less easy on the ear than when a turntable isn't as good as it could be.
I'd also disagree that there is less variation between high-end vinyl than high-end digital when arms and cartridges have such variation in themselves, but if we all agreed then these forums wouldn't be half as much fun as they are now.
Best Regards,
Chris redmond.
Yes vinyl is a"forgiving" format, in the sense that a wide range of vinyl gears sound musical. But if you had both vinyl and digital formats in your system and spent time and money developing the two formats to the point where they sound pretty much alike, then you might conclude that you are converging on an end point. Moreover, if you're into modding gear, and reached this point after installing better piece parts and circuit designs, then you might further conclude that there is a convergence of art and science on this point.
"Moreover, if you're into modding gear, and reached this point after installing better piece parts and circuit designs, then you might further conclude that there is a convergence of art and science on this point."
I'm not into modding gear as such, though I do believe that with audio, the simpler the circuit is the better, which also means shortest signal paths, the least processing and the very best components/conductors which means silver.
"But if you had both vinyl and digital formats in your system and spent time and money developing the two formats to the point where they sound pretty much alike, then you might conclude that you are converging on an end point."
If you go to an audio show where Audio Note have a room, you'll find one of their turntables alongside a digital front end, and if it wasn't for the odd click/pop of older vinyl you'd be hard pressed to know which source was playing.
Best Regards,
Chris redmond.
Thank you and bless your pea pickin' heart.
DS
Thank you for a calm, well-thought out response. Some here are really brutal.
You claimed in your original post that you wanted responses on how a ten-year-old Sony could possibly sound better than an Esoteric DV-60. You got your answer from me and another poster in "calm" and "well-thought-out" responses: Your Esoteric DV-60 is not yet broken in.
Please don't shoot the messenger. To do so would be "brutal" on your part.
I used to own the Sony SCD-1 (stock) and before that the Sony SCD-777ES (stock). I am very familiar with the sound of these players on CD and SACD. I now own the Esoteric DV-60 (stock). The Esoteric is so much better in every way on CD and SACD than the stock Sonys that it is not even funny. Hence, I respectfully distance myself from your comment that "most here" think that the stock SCD-1 sounds better than the stock DV-60.There are several critical setting adjustments that need to be made to make a fully broken-in (i.e., at least 200 hours of playing time) Esoteric DV-60 sound its best. I previously posted in Digital Drive on this subject. I respectfully refer you to my prior post (see link below), suggest that you make the recommended setting adjustments, and then shoot out the two players and post your findings here.
Edits: 03/25/09 03/25/09
I really appreciate your input. First let me say that I have the settings exactly as you recommend. I had gotten this Esoteric with the thought of selling the SCD-1 to finance a new cartridge for my TT, but was surprised at what we heard. I had been hoping to hear what you seem to get from your DVC-60.
I have a number of duplicate CDs so that we could put one copy of a CD in the DV-60 and one in the SCD-1. We then started one about 10 seconds before the other so that we could hear the same music on both just seconds apart. I use a Parasound JC-2, JC-1s, Soliloquy 6.5 speakers and all the cables my company makes along with the power cords and power conditioners. Let me add that I was not biased in any way as to the outcome. as a matter a fact if there was a prejudice, it was towards the Esoteric, its reputation preceding it.
Is this an Audiogon ad for the essentially brand new Esoteric DV-60 you claim to have shot out against a several-year-old Sony SCD-1?http://www.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cls.pl?dgtlplay&1242954735&/Esoteric-DV-60-AS-NEW
If so, your DV-60, which you admit in your ad has at most four hours on it on SACD and zero hours on CD, is not even close to broken in, and the "shoot out" to which you subjected it in this compromised state was most unfair.
Principles of fundamental fairness require that you give the Esoteric DV-60 a proper break-in (200+ hours of playing time) before reviewing it. If you are unwilling to do so because you want to sell the unit on Audiogon as "brand new," then you should refrain from posting the results of a purported "shoot out" that the DV-60 was predestined to lose.
I hope you continue to enjoy your SCD-1. It is a good player, but IMHO it cannot hold a candle to a properly broken-in Esoteric DV-60. Thanks.
* * * *
APPENDIX: Text of Silver Circle's Esoteric DV-60 Audiogon ad as of 1:40 PM EST, March 25, 2009 (bold emphasis added):
"I took this Esoteric DV-60 in trade from an Esoteric dealer who wanted one of my pure power one 5.0 power conditioners (www.silvercircleaudio.com). I find, though it is spectacular and currently a Stereophile Class A digital player, I am happy with what I have. This unit was opened by the dealer, and then sent to me. I played 4 SACDs on it. Nary a mark on it. The asking price is more than fair for a brand new unit. I will be listing some demo Silver Circle Audio gear soon that will be a bargain hunter’s delight.
Buyer pays shipping and PayPal fees. The unit will be shipped FedEx in its triple box with manual, remote, and registration card. Thanks for looking."
Edits: 03/25/09 03/25/09 03/25/09 03/25/09
I am drawing in a breath and letting out a long sigh. I knew better.
It was not a purported "shoot out", it was several people with many thousands of hours in high-end audio and audio production, both PCM and DSD listening to 2 units that reproduce recorded music. I don't want to get into any kind of you-know-what-match with anyon on hee. I simply asked for opinions and, gee, I got yours, didn't I?
There is nothing misleading in the Audiogon ad. It would not be fair for me to listen the thing for 200 hours and offer it for sale "AS NEW" not new. New requires an unopened box. This comes with warranty. I really don't know what your point is except that you want me to create a USED DV-60 to prove that it is better than the SCD-1.
... at the time of your comparison with the fully broken-in SCD-1?
It is a simple question, really.
Based on your A-gon ad, you only had about four hours on it.
My DV-60 sounded less than stellar at four hours, too. At four-HUNDRED hours, it was amazing. Too bad you will miss out on that incredible transformation.
< < < "It would not be fair for me to listen the thing for 200 hours and offer it for sale 'AS NEW'" > > >
Right you are. (And thanks for admitting that your DV-60 had less than 200 hours on it.) Likewise, it would not be fair to compare a brand new DV-60 to a fully broken-in SCD-1, which is exactly what you did, apparently.
Good luck with your A-gon sale, your stock Sony, and everything else.
"(And thanks for admitting that your DV-60 had less than 200 hours on it.)"
I don't get it. For me to admit something, I would have to have been implying something other than that. A priori, misleading. I thought I was rather straightforward.
BTW, thanks for posting my ad on the asylum.
You 'implied' that your DV-60 had less than 200 hours on it by posting an A-gon ad in which you stated that you only played four SACDs on an otherwise brand new unit.So now you have a golden opportunity to tell the world how many hours are on the DV-60.
Is it four hours, in which case your A-gon ad is accurate and your comparison to the SCD-1 is, to be polite, not helpful?
Or is it 200+ hours, in which case your A-gon ad is ... ?
You get the point (I think).
Edits: 03/25/09
My God, how many times do I have to state this? I never said this was a deifinitive test. I said we listened and reported what we heard. I got the DV-60 from a dealer who wanted a power conditioner of nearly e3qual value. We played around 4 SACDs on it. THAT's IT!!! If you, by any stretch of the imagination, are implying that I am lying, you and I need to have a discussion off line, my friend. The anonymity endowed by the internet gives even the lowliest courage to say things they never would in person. Let it be!
Thank you, I rest my case.
What should matter to you is how your player sounds in your system, not what anybody else thinks or writes about it on AA. That is unless you base your buying decisions on reviews versus trusting your own hearing. If you are happy with it and someone else says they prefered a different brand, regardless of how many hours it should take for the caps to fully form or someone's ears to adjust, it should not matter as Silver Circle may be merely pointing out personal sonic preferences or system dependancies as it was at the time. At the quality point these players are all at, the differences are so minute that a simple cable swap might just change the personal preferences of either. But then again those of us lucky enough to have paid so little but to have such quality can't help but gloat.
If you think the sonic differences between a stock Sony SCD-1 and a stock Esoteric DV-60 are "minute," then I would say save your money and keep on enjoying the SCD-1. I have heard both players over extended periods of time and have concluded that they are not in the same league. (Have you ever experienced a fully broken-in and properly programmed/set-up DV-60, or are you simply assuming it is not worth the extra money over an SCD-1?)
As far as gloating is concerned, coming onto this board with one's second post of all time and announcing, after running a comparison with a brand new Esoteric DV-60 (but without disclosing such fact), that "most here" would agree that a stock Sony SCD-1 handily beats stock Esoteric DV-60 is hardly gloating. Rather, it can most charitably be described as blissful ignorance.
But given that: (A) the original poster is in the high-end audio industry and should be familiar with the importance of break-in, and (B) considering the fact that he received his Esoteric DV-60 from an authorized Esoteric dealer who likely advised him that the DV-60 requires a minimum of 200-300 hours of play-time break-in to sound its best, and (C) since he was comparing the DV-60 to an SCD-1, a player that he presumably recalled required a similarly extended break-in to sound even halfway decent, and (D) considering the original poster's (what I consider to be) equivocating responses to questions about the number of hours he had on the DV-60, my personal opinion of the original post is not so charitable.
If you think the sonic differences between a stock Sony SCD-1 and a stock Esoteric DV-60 are "minute," then I would say save your money and keep on enjoying the SCD-1. I have heard both players over extended periods of time and have concluded that they are not in the same league. (Have you ever experienced a fully broken-in and properly programmed/set-up DV-60, or are you simply assuming it is not worth the extra money over an SCD-1?)
--- Sorry Mudman, I guess I was falsely under the impression this thread was about modded Sony players. So someone critiqued your often praised baby. So what! Regardless of what they said or who said it, it is only an opinion. Get over it. Hey, when I was a kid I had JBL L-300s. Feel free to bash. But then again, your opinion would only be valid if you heard them fully broken in in the context of your system. I did have vinyl at the time, so that made me cool.
As far as gloating is concerned, coming onto this board with one's second post of all time and announcing, after running a comparison with a brand new Esoteric DV-60 (but without disclosing such fact), that "most here" would agree that a stock Sony SCD-1 handily beats stock Esoteric DV-60 is hardly gloating. Rather, it can most charitably be described as blissful ignorance.
--- I don't believe anyone here would ever say that the stock Sony SCD-1 would best any player over say 2 Gs. None. A modded player however... And did I mention that most players over say 5 K are way over priced? Including your own. What exactly does one get for 8, 10, 15 or even 30 + grand? Sorry if my '67 Nova with a souped up small block kicks your Porsche's butt in the quarter mile.
But given that: (A) the original poster is in the high-end audio industry and should be familiar with the importance of break-in, and (B) considering the fact that he received his Esoteric DV-60 from an authorized Esoteric dealer who likely advised him that the DV-60 requires a minimum of 200-300 hours of play-time break-in to sound its best, and (C) since he was comparing the DV-60 to an SCD-1, a player that he presumably recalled required a similarly extended break-in to sound even halfway decent, and (D) considering the original poster's (what I consider to be) equivocating responses to questions about the number of hours he had on the DV-60, my personal opinion of the original post is not so charitable.
---- Sounds like you have a major hard on for anyone that critiques your stuff in any way. Then reread a positive review. That'll stroke your audio buying ego. As far as "break in" is concerned, two to three hundred hours sounds pretty long. As the caps should be pretty much fully formed by a day or so one has to wonder why it takes so long. Is it an issue with the transport mechanism? Or did you simply get used to how it sounded?
Apparently, you have not read the entire thread so let me summarize it for you.
The original poster, who is a high-end audio manufacturer, made unfavorable comments about a stock Esoteric DV-60, a player I currently own and with which I am very familiar, as compared to a stock Sony SCD-1 (a player I used to own). I tried to be constructive by pointing out that the comparatively-less-than-stellar sonics he claimed to have heard from the DV-60 might have been the result of a lack of break-in hours on the player. The original poster then acknowledged (grudgingly, IMO) that the DV-60 in question was brand new, and that even after the comparison it had less than four hours on it on SACD and zero hours on CD.
Now that you know that a high-end audio manufacturer conducted and then, in his second AA post ever, reported on what I think just about everyone here would consider to be a fatally flawed comparison between two SACD players (one fully broken in, and one not at all), what do you have to say?
It is okay by me if you do not get fired up about such things, but if that is the case then why would you bother chastising someone who tries to correct the record?
Apparently, you have not read the entire thread so let me summarize it for you.
--- Actually I did with the little time I have to surf. It appeared to me that the original poster was making the comparison of your no doubt rightly prized player with a modified SCD-1, hence the thread title "Esoteric DV-60 vs. SCD-1 with VSEI mods."
The original poster, who is a high-end audio manufacturer, made unfavorable comments about a stock Esoteric DV-60, a player I currently own and with which I am very familiar, as compared to a stock Sony SCD-1 (a player I used to own). I tried to be constructive by pointing out that the comparatively-less-than-stellar sonics he claimed to have heard from the DV-60 might have been the result of a lack of break-in hours on the player. The original poster then acknowledged (grudgingly, IMO) that the DV-60 in question was brand new, and that even after the comparison it had less than four hours on it on SACD and zero hours on CD.
--- Sorry, other than your mention of 4 hours on the player after the fact, I don't recall that the box was just opened. For that matter, have you not known dealers to actually sell the component on display, only to replace it with another from stock? That way the component is more fully burned in, thus the customer hopefully hears what he heard when in the store.
Now that you know that a high-end audio manufacturer conducted and then, in his second AA post ever, reported on what I think just about everyone here would consider to be a fatally flawed comparison between two SACD players (one fully broken in, and one not at all), what do you have to say?
--- The entire industry is flawed. Shoot, post a photo of your stuff and someone here will give you opinions on why it does not sound good by what they see. People here seem to spend more time reading rags and blogging about audio than actually listening to it. Case in point, go to a high end show and see if you can get a quiet moment in a room to actually listen to the stuff.
--- I bought an amp in the early 90s that was put down by Stereophile in favor of another one in the same issue. There were probably more variables in the two items under test (system compatability...) than the non review you are refering to. Heck, the manufacturer of the other amp was even interviewed in the same issue. Did I get my panties all in a wad because my amp was rated lower? No, it sounded fine in my rig. I got it for a good deal and I was happy with it, reviews be darned.
It is okay by me if you do not get fired up about such things, but if that is the case then why would you bother chastising someone who tries to correct the record?
--- I chastised no one. I just get a kick reading how audiophiles' little ids are hurt when someone puts their black box of choice down, regardless of the situation. It is not me that says, "it is all subjective," only to give high ratings on literally hundreds of components to assure all the end users in the club are happy. Had you spent 2 Gs on the VSE package maybe you would have ended up with the same sound you now have, or perhaps even better in the context of your system. You'd also have 3 or 4 Gs left over for more software. Now please post that photo for me.
Didn't realize I was in court. You might consider not taking everything in such an adversarial mode.
200 hours break in, how does a prospective buyer have a home audition and get the correct impressions?
I am a little nervous about these long break in period, I always suspect that the manufacturer is playing with non proven facts.
See Esoteric DV-60 review at below link. Excerpt:
"Emerging from its double-packed cocoon, the product itself impressed me with its build quality and solidity. But patience is an invaluable asset, as I discovered when I inserted the DV-60 into my system. The elevated treble, harsh violins, and near-total absence of bass indicated a unit badly in need of break-in time -- lots of it. Running it 24/7 for two weeks was probably excessive, but afterward, when I began listening to music through it, the DV-60 had turned into a totally different and far more companionable animal."
I have reviewed the SA60, X03SE both new and there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that it takes at least 200hrs, if not more to get to the full potential of those machines.
Gary Koh from Genesis had broken-in the P05/D05 I also reviewed and his feedback was also that the gear took very long to break-in.
Esoteric makes no secret of it and my experience confirms their advice to not make any judgement for at least 200 to 300 hours.
So either the comparison was done with a unit absolutely not ready for prime-time or the ad is shall we say "misleading"
What in the ad was mmisleading? I simply said I prefer what I have. Geez!
That's fine, but if the player truly has 4 hours on it then the comparison is meaningless and so is having a preference.
that only those with the Esoteric machines had a problem with what The Circle man said.
Very astute observation - may have something to do with the fact that we know what those machines can do once they have more than 4 hours on them?
Same test done with a machine with more than 200 hours, I would not have any objection to the conclusion whichever it came out to be.
Just flagging that making an assessment on any machine with 4 hours of play is not reasonnable, on an Esoteric player it's flat out un-representative of the machine's capability.
Now the SA60/DV60 have a sound that is not typical of other Esoteric components I know and actually is far from being my favorite in their line. So I can easily understand somebody coming to the conclusion that they don't like it - but not after 4 hours of play. It would be like deciding that you don't like a Chateau Margaux 3 months after harvest... (if you're a wine enthousiast) or that the new Porsche 911 is crap 2 miles after leaving the factory...
Frederik,
You mention Gary Koh of Genesis. We did an Upgrade of his Esoteric DV-50 about two years ago.
It was a dramatic improvement over the stock DV-50 and he still has it and still uses it personally.
He told me recently that Esoteric were not happy he was using it at shows and insisted they give him the latest unit for shows, but he personally considers our Upgraded DV-50 to be well ahead of anything they have so far given him!
Regards, Allen (Vacuum State)
I don't know about the part with Esoteric but I know for sure that Gary loves his modified DV50.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: