Hi-Rez Highway New high resolution SACD releases, players and technology.

---

[ Follow Ups ] Thread: [ Display  All  Email ] [ Hi-Rez Highway ]

---

[ Alert Moderator ] [ Edit ] [ Delete ]

---

150+ hr review:Sony SCD-XA-777ES player

171.66.216.206

Posted by dfong on November 26, 2002 at 11:09:26

hi all, i'll post a formal review a few months down the road, but i thought i'd share my impressions after owning the Sony XA-777ES player for a little over a week. I've had it playing continually for nearly 180 hours now (mostly in SACD mode) and although i didn't necessarily believe the rumors that it needed burning in, i have seen the character of the player improve in time and seems now to have "stabilized." (or is that my hearing/expectations?)

background: i sat on the SACD fence for a long time. i considered the SCD-777ES a few years back but wasn't impressed with the software selection (under 100 titles) and its Redbook performance relative to the player i settlted on (Arcam Alpha 9). i found the 777ES gave up a fair amount of midrange transparency and it sounded a bit rough at the high frequency extremes...less air and ambience than the Arcam.

the details of the rest of my hardware can be found on my system description.

first and foremost:

SACD! here is no contest, the XA wins hands down in all departments: resolution, transparency in the midrange and all frequencies(!), amazing
control of transients, wide and deep soundstage, organic presence. you
name it, a good SACD has it. sure, if the recording is old, for instance
Boston-Boston or the Stones releases, then product is still going to be inferior to a top-notch CD. nevertheless, the SACD treatment breathes new life into the recordings. there is more detail, distinct imaging, transient control, and less of that "digititus." DSD recordings like Ana Caram's Blue Bossa (Chesky) are incredible: midrange purity is nothing short of "she is here in my listening room." Is is the "final step" to musical nirvana...i keep thinking i've found it, and then something new comes out. the SACD format suggests to me once more that i've "got it." no need for more upgrades...just sit back and enjoy the music.

Where SACD totally blows away CD, even on great CD recordings, is dynamics and transient resolution. guitar plucks are so realistic in their attack and decay. I was spellbound by the information contained in the SACD version of "Friday Night in San Francisco." The old CD was nice, but the SACD remaster is amazing. the guitars are so well resolved on the SACD. i have never heard the transients sound this good before on my system.

Bass control: the low end is amazing. i've always marvelled at the quickness and control of the low end by my Maggies and REL. the SACDs take this quality up another notch. the Telarc Sound of Glory is a great example. the low notes of the organ are deep, solid, and so realistic.

i could go on and on. but let me just say that SACD is indeed a quantum leap in improvement over the CD format. i've always been skeptical based on the "science" i've read regarding the format (noise-shaping, etc)...but the proof is in the listening. it is nothing short of amazing.

In all cases, the SACD improves upon the CD versions (for the
duplicates i own) whether the recording in CD is excellent, good, or poor. Poor recordings like the prior CD releases of Boston and the Stones are elevated to a good to very good status. superlative CD recordings like The Raven (Rebecca Pidgeon) gain another level of realism in their SACD form.

i was blown away this weekend by a disc i wouldn't
have been caught dead with back in Jr. High School (so you can figure out
my age now): Michael Jackson's Thriller. i bought it on a whim this
weekend thinking it would be fun now that all of these hits aren't being
played incessantly on the radio. WOW! what an amazing disc musically (i
can now appreciate his genius as i get older) and sonically--the dynamics
and resolution are outstanding. i dare say it sounded "high end" in quality.

So...is this the holy grail? perhaps.

will i be throwing away my CD collection? never! while i find SACDs are more satisfying sonically, there are countless pieces of music i own that will probably never make it to SACD [recordings of folk artists on small record labels, for instance]. and while i am an audiophile, i am a music lover first, and foremost.

So, how does the XA do on Redbook? pretty fine thank you. granted if break-in is important, i probably haven't broken in the CD section of the paper enough yet. so what i say below is said with that caveat.

is the XA better than the Arcam? the jury is still out on that one. the best i can do for now is say that the presentations are different. on my limited listening, i can offer the following general comments:

- Sony: slightly less forward soundstage perspective; better control of
transients and dynamics; a hint of grain in the midrange

- Arcam: slightly more forward soundstage perspective. deeper and solid
bass (but perhaps exagerrated?)...more transparent midrange.

- on XRCDs: i give the Sony the edge...it seems like it possesses more
resolution. nevertheless, still, on vocals on XRCDs, the Arcam sounds
more transparent than the Sony, albeit, by a small amount.

-on HDCDs: the Arcam really has a leg up. i had originally thought that
HDCD discs sounded good primarily because they are well engineered and
recorded. while i still think that is true, i think the HDCD decoding
capability does give the Arcam a significant advantage on such
discs...more transparent, bigger soundstage (width and depth), and the
most gorgeous midrange achievable.

overall, they really offer two different perspectives on Redbook CDs.
which is more right? i don't know. it seems like the dynamics are so well
controlled on the Sony. can this be an exaggeration? hard to
say...perhaps, i have a colored view of what is "midrange transparency"?
i don't think so. my point of comparison are some folk-singer/songwriters
(like Richard Shindell/Dar Williams/Cheryl Wheeler/John Gorka/etc) whom
i've heard live countless times. the Arcam seems to get a smidge closer
to replicating the voices that i've heard live...albeit but a small
margin.

they are both great CD players. if the XA was available when i bought my
Arcam (the original 777ES was noticeably inferior on Redbook), i probably
would have bought the XA. it's midrange isn't quite as transparent, IMHO,
but it is darn close. on other aspects, it is as good or better than the
Arcam.

based on this first week or so of listening, i'll certainly be keeping my
Arcam around for HDCDs at the very least, and who knows what i'll use for
other Redbooks. i'm spoiled now to have two fabulous Redbook
players...but of course, now i'll have to choose when i pull a CD out! =)

the only question i ask myself now is whether i can afford to run out and buy a few more SACDs (my collection is a meager 25 or so right now). of couse, if i had bought a cheaper player like the C555ES, maybe i would have more disposable income to by them...but patience...i'll eventually get more software. i think my wish list is around 50 right now...

i just hope those new releases keep coming...*

* i've rationalized that if SACD dies and i end up with around 100 discs [yielding roughtly a 50%/50% hardware/software ratio), i won't feel bad about my $2k investment in the format. the musical satisfaction i get from the few SACDs i currently own have already justified the format, whether it becomes mainstream, and audiophile niche product, or goes the way of Betamax. i would be thrilled, however, if it survives and the releases continue for many more years.

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

Schiit Audio

---

[ Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]

---

[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]

---