Question for Neil Gader on Esoteric X05 Review
default -- Mon, 01/05/2009 - 19:55
Neil,
Thanks for a great read on a great product. I have the X 03 SE and just enjoyed reading about the 05.
I do have a few questions about your time with the CD player, if you don't mind.
How was break in? Did it take a very long time?
Did you listen through balanced or single ended outputs?
Did you use any isolation devices in lieu of te three feet and, if so, what did you use? Did you remove the feet?
Did you use an aftermarket power cord?
Appreciate the input. I am in process of recommending one for a buddy but would like to know the fine details.
Thanks! And keep up the great work.
Dennis
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1999 - 2011 NextScreen. All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
Dennis,
Thanks for the note. I listened single ended and break-in was routine. That is, after a couple hours of warm up it began sounding terrific and progressed from there in small but notable increments. I used both stock power cords plus after market ones like Kimber Palladian, Wireworld Silver Eclipse amd my current preference, the Synergistic Research Tesla. I didn't experiment with any isolation footers, etc but since it sits on an ultra heavy rack isolation is not much of an issue. While I believe we have lots of choices in the CD player market, there remains a bunch of mediocre SACD players that really don't realize the promise of this format. So what I'm saying is if you're considering SACD as a critical source format going forward than the X-05 is awfully hard to beat for the money. But that part, you obviously already know!
Neil Gader Associate Editor The Absolute Sound
Neil I have just purchased the X-05 and just love the product. I was wondering if you experimented with the wide versus narrow setting and also the DSD direct versus normal settings and what your impression was?
did you get an answer on this question?
No I did not.
did you get an answer on this question?
Greg,
As a rule I'm not big on limiting or experimenting too greatly with filters. Whenever possible I'll stick with the fullest bandwidth ( and hopefully air and resolution) that I can get and let the chips fall where they may. In any event, brightness, edge or peakiness is the last thing the X-05 has to concern itself about. If anything, some would describe it as almost mellow in comparison to a lot of the digital stuff out there, as would I.
Neil Gader Associate Editor The Absolute Sound
Thanks Neil for the reply. The more I listen to the player the more I appreciate the analog type qualities of the player. I listen in the wide mode and normal in SACD. If you switch over to the Direct mode which is used for SACD the output levels drop by 3db on both redbook and SACD so I have just left the settings in normal and cannot hear much of a difference between the two.
One question I have for you is how much do you feel the quality of the transport affects the sound quality? I have heard differences in opinion that the transport should not have that much affect and that what really matters is the clock, chips and analog circuitry.
Hey Greg,
Frankly I didn't do a lot of experimentation with the X-05 outside of its default setting. (I did however play with various interconnects-that can make huge changes). What typically happens for me is that players with selectable filters provide an interesting option for various genres of music but are quickly adapted to by the listener. They "flavor" the sound, offering up a bit more space or treble transparency but just as often remove something else from the sonics-the mids lose their bite or dimensionality goes a bit flat. One might be good for rock, another for classical-one for chamber another for symphonic. It's as if I'm back to quick-changing cartridges on my turntable again! I'm exaggerating of course but the fact is I came to enjoy the X-05 straight out of the box and that in and of itself was one of its great pleasures.
Neil Gader Associate Editor The Absolute Sound
Mr.Gader:
I would like you to consider the following:
The Sony SCD-XA5400ES, which costs a paltry $1500 (!!!) sounds markedly better than ANY player from Ayre, Luxman, Audio Research, or Esoteric that costs under $10,000!
I didn't believe it either, but I have had the Ayre C5-Xe for 3 years (or is Ayre an UNWORD where you work...lol?), and I thought it was the best of the best for under $10,000. (The Ayre betters units for $6000 and $8000 that you guys routinely recommend, and it was lauded in your pages before it fell into a black hole mysteriously, so I can only conclude that the Ayre company fell afoul of your editors in some undisclosed manner...lol)
The Sony 5400 is not only better, it is a full order of magnitude better than all of the above; not by a small amount!
I have NEVER heard ANY SACD/CD player reproduce a concert grand piano doing the Liszt Sonata or Beethoven"s Hammerkalvier with lifelike sonorities and dynamics as if at a live rehearsal; the Sony does it!!! It is quite amazing and satisfying. The same is true of much other music I have listened to; I have over 2000 CDs and SACDs so I will not go on and on; the Sony is simply the best by far.
I have been an audiophile for over 30 years, and have heard all of the players for under $10,000, and they simply do not compete with this Sony. I freely admit that I do NOT listen to units costing $12,000 and more, because they are not something my budget will allow me to consider.
So you will not think that I am listening with questionable system components when i say this, I have a system with the latest Audio Research electronics and Vandersteen 3A speakers with 2B subwoofers ($30,000 or so); good stuff (my system is all-balanced).
So....when a $1500 player blows away everything for under $10,000...is this not big news???
Are you guys ignorant of this, or is it not convenient to tell the truth when certain advertisers will probably be upset by the truth??
(of course, since you don't know that Ayre exists...perhaps you do not acknowledge the existence of Sony either?..lol)
Thanks for the response, Neil. I appreciate the time.
I want to recommend the player to a buddy who has a CJ Art II, which is single ended only, so this works (unless I can twist his arm and have him get the X03).
The rest was my learning.
SACD is pretty awesome if done properly. The well recorded SACD's are truly amazing. Sad it hasn't caught on. I do find that my X03 does play well recorded red books books pretty incredibly as well, though incredibly revealing. Poorly recorded CD's aren't very enjoyable. The machine isn't forgiving at all.
Thanks again. Great mag and this interface makes it even better.
Dennis
Just wondering Neil, how you would compare the X-05 to the Marantz SA-7SI which you have also heard (I read your capsule to REG's report on the 7sI in The Absolute Sound).
Michael,
The Marantz is an impressive unit. Probably not the match for the Esoteric in terms of disc handling (what is?). Selectable filters are a neat item but are easily acclimated to and forgotten in my view. At the end of the day I'd give the Esoteric the advantage because it sounds less like a digital source and more like the best of analog (on SACDs anyway) than the Marantz.
Neil Gader Associate Editor The Absolute Sound
Neil if you compare the Marantz and the Estoeric on normal redbook would you still give the nod to the Esoteric?
Hi Neil,
Good review. Well like they say audio is so system depended. I took the X-05 for a spin. Used all balanced interconnects. I had a nice weekend with it. Very nice unit indeed. I enjoyed my time with it. But in the end I found the Marantz SA7-S1 overall more enjoyable, better on red-book CD and a draw with SACD.
The Marantz makes you relax and enjoy the presentation. Only my old Linn CD12 had this same quality and perhaps more so on red-book cd's. I had a itch to make a change, but after comparing the Marantz gave me pause to really understand just how good this unit is for any mount of money.
Marantz did something right with this model. Now this does not make the X-05 less of a stellar player of CD's, if I heard this before hearing the Marantz SA7-S1 I would have been very happy and I still could buy a X-05 and be happy, but I be spending money money and gaining little for it.
Did you have a chance to A/B the two untis?
Great review!
Phil
And, unbelievably, I'm beginning to look at Esoteric's DV-60 (unbelievable because it's outside my budget, but I could be persuaded to brown-bag lunch for awhile) and wonder if there's any similarity of sound with the X-05. To spend this much I'd want a player to do several things well and, given Esoteric's reputation, the DV-60 might fit the bill.
Does the X-05 have integral volume control, so that it can be used directly into a power amp?
It does not have an integral volume control.
Greg,
Regarding the X-05 and power cords, isolation devices, etc. I always begin critical listening with the unit as it's presented to me. Dead stock. Later on in the process I might play around a bit with outboard assists like cords and footers but typically I don't hve the room in the article to write about such things unless they are imparting a truly outstanding difference. Normally a player like the X-05 is placed on a very heavy spiked rack, the name of which escapes me. It uses an organic crushed crystal-like shelving that is absolutely inert. I did substitute power cords ultimately settling on the excellent Synergistic Tesla, which, to me open up the soundstage even further. In terms of break-in, my sample had been run-in a bit by Esoteric but I also used the Isotek disc to give its circuitry an additional assist. Very hard to accurately assess the changes that occur over the break-in period-it's a continuing and incremental process that is difficult to actually quantify. If it improved over time, which I'm sure it did, the changes were all consonant with the performance it had straight from the box. thus it retained it's intrinsic character and simply continued to evolve and function with greater and greater ease and openness.
Neil Gader Associate Editor The Absolute Sound
Neil,
Thanks for taking a stand on the Esoteric vs. Marantz. I'm cross shopping those two and your opinions are very helpful. I do not live in a city where I can demo such products and, as such, I must rely on reviewers I trust. AHC is on a mission on the importance of auditioning gear and not simply relying on reviewers, but this is NOT a realistic option for many of his readers.
Sadly, it's become more of a trial to audition gear than ever before, especially for those living outside of a major market like LA, SF, Chicago, NY, etc. Always a good option is to become involved in any local audio society that might be in your region. They provide a good exchange of ideas, and often some great leads where good gear-new and used might be heard. Best of luck in your quest.
Neil Gader Associate Editor The Absolute Sound
I very much enjoyed your review of the Esoteric X-05 and have ordered one. It sounds like what I'm looking for: a top notch CD player, and top notch SACD player. Your point about red book CDs is well taken. As much as I enjoy SACDs, the bulk of my CD library consists of red book CDs and I want to get the most out of them. And if the player sounds more like analog without losing detail, even better! I assume it will play any CD/SACD it's fed (unlike my fussy 4-year old Marantz). A question or two: the X-05 has balanced and "regular" (does that mean single ended?) outputs. My 75 watt Pathos integrated amp also has these two types of inputs. I have been using a pair of excellent interconnects and am reluctant to part with them (expensive, but they don't have the three prongs necessary to plug into a balanced connection). What is the benefit to listening through a balanced connection? What, exactly, does balanced mean? And--generally speaking soundwise--is it worth buying new cables that will plug into a balanced connection? Thanks! And I've been enjoying TAS for several years.
In the time I spent with the player it never rejected a single CD or SACD, so no problem there.
And yea, “regular” would mean unbalanced RCA interconnects. It’s possible that you might derive a benefit from going balanced but if you’re happy with the current config I wouldn’t be so quick to dump what works for you. Chances are you spent considerable time and money getting the system to sound the way you like it. Taking the plunge with balanced wire may not take you where you want to go.
First off I’m going to refer you to Editor-in-Chief Robert Harley’s lucid explanation of cables in Chapter 11 of his own "The Complete Guide to High End Audio". Nobody explains audio and video like Robert.
Historically, and in the most general terms, balanced cables of the three-pin XLR variety are associated with pro apps while RCA plug unbalanced are associated with consumer products. That has changed somewhat in recent year although the majority of gear still runs unbalanced for the most part. The advantages of the three conductor balanced line versus the twin conductor unbalanced is its superior noise rejection of RF and EMI especially on long runs¬–a situation typical in the large confines of a recording studio. Sonically however there is little guarantee that a balanced cable will automatically be superior to an unbalanced one, nor will it necessarily be perceived as quieter in the typical home listening room where the wire isn’t coming into conflict with such a large array of powerful studio electronics, i.e. mixing boards, recorders, DAC, outboard devices and hundreds of feet of various cables. Perhaps the best way to start would be to contact the company that makes your current interconnect and ask if you could audition or find a dealer who would loan you the balanced version. That would be the best way to confirm the results in your system before you lay out all that cash.
Neil Gader Associate Editor The Absolute Sound
Neil--
I don't know if it's correct "protocol" to add a comment to your comment, but I wanted to thank you. First, you RESPONDED! Your response was specific, knowledgable and very helpful .And what a relief!! My initial reaction after ordering the X-05 and then discovering the balanced inputs in a photo was "Oh, no, what did I do? Now I have to spend even more money!" I really just want to listen to music....
It's because of writers like you that I tend to favor TAS over Stereophile these days, although I still enjoy both magazines. TAS gains the edge because, to my mind, it is more succint, more critical (i.e., TAS writers are more likely to express negative criticisms), and the reviews don't all sound the same (again, because not everything is described as having more air, deeper/more controlled bass, a soundstage to die for, clean/brilliant highs, etc. etc.).
Thanks again for the response. I'll let you know what I think of the X-05 when I get it hooked up and playing.
--Don
My pleasure. And if you do manage to listen with balanced interconnects please post your impressions. Everyone on this forum would love to read about your experience.
Neil Gader Associate Editor The Absolute Sound
Will do. But it may not be for quite awhile. According to the manufacturer, if I understood him correctly, I need to run each mode--SACD and CD--separately for 300-500 hours to achieve the best sound. I'm reluctant to put something mechanical on eternal spin for days on end to tune it up (no pun intended) so I'll do a combination of "running in" and normal playing.
--Don
I can't see any reason for breaking in the wires in different modes. SACD has the widest bandwidth and dynamics, that or a good break in disc like the ones from Isotek will do the job. Meanwhile just enjoy the player. Even cables lacking break-in should sound pretty good right out of the box. and they changes they engender over time are subtle rather than transformational.
Neil Gader Associate Editor The Absolute Sound
Hi Neil, 2 months ago I made an inquiry relative to purchasing a back issue of TAS. To date, no response. Specifically, i'd like to purchase the issue several years back when HP did the the review of the Nearfield Acoustic Pipedreams. I purchased the speakers based on the review, kept them several years and then replaced with Dunlavy VI's. I've recently purchased the exact pair that HP used for the review. I'd really like to have the back issue and if any way possible, ask HP to autograph the cover for me. As a TAS subscriber for many years past, I'm more than willing to pay for the cost of the back issue and would like to be able to frame the autographed copy if HP would be so kind. Thanks in advance for any help you can provide.
Greg Bagwell
3518 lost tree Ct
Martinez, Ga 30907
I for one would love to hear of anyone finds the balanced option better!
Neil:
Does the Esoteric "dance"? Does Ella scat? Does Basie boogie? Do waltzes sound like ONE-two-three, One-two-three? That was one of the remaining questions I had after reading the review. Given that there are no longer and bio(scopes) about writers' preferences in TAS anymore, this may not be something that matters to you in equipment. It does to me, and so I find myself looking for a CD player after buying the Cambridge, which is everything RH said it was --- and mentioned in passing it wasn't (which is: it doesn't quite boogie, because of it's lack of "jump"). The Bryston sounds like it definitely does, but I'd like to know if this was something you noticed about the X-licious 5. Just curious.
A response to Greg Gale and (hopefully) of interest to Neil:
I did some comparative listening between "normal" and "direct" modes yesterday for a couple of SACD and redbook recordings--a fairly recent Chesky jazz trio recroding in 2-channel SACD, and that old Telarc warhorse "Fanfare for the Common Man" dating back to 1982. Results were fairly consistent for both discs. The direct mode tended to flatten the soundstage (less depth immediately apparant between drums and piano; opening brass not as far back in the hall), and moved the soundstage a bit to the right, providing less of a spread. The direct mode also softened the "shimmer" of the brushwork somewhat (although raising the volume might have helped here), but it definitely made the kick drums sound worse (you couldn't hear the skin as much and the "whacks" weren't as sharp). The decay of the thundersheet in the Copland was also more prominent in the normal mode. As for the infamous Telarc kettle drum, the sound of the drum's skin was more prominent in the normal mode.
The only benefits I noted in the direct mode were: a) the double bass on the Chesky disc seemed more prominent and had more of its own space ('tho the piano and drums lost some of their space), and b) the solo piano on a Rachmaninov disc (Ashkenazy, SACD downmixed to 2 channels) at one point seemed to have more slam in the bass. I'm not sure about the latter...it might have just caught my attention and may sound just as good in normal mode.
Interesting results, since they seem to be the opposite of what the directions indicate. If Direct mode outputs without a filter process, I would expect Direct to sound better. I'm not sure if my Pathos MkIII has "a narrow correspondence frequency range" but I doubt it, indicating it, too, should sound better in Direct mode. Any ideas, Neal? Misprint in the directions? I don't understand electronics, just what my ears tell me.
A response to Greg Gale and (hopefully) of interest to Neil:
I did some comparative listening between "normal" and "direct" modes yesterday for a couple of SACD and redbook recordings--a fairly recent Chesky jazz trio recroding in 2-channel SACD, and that old Telarc warhorse "Fanfare for the Common Man" dating back to 1982. Results were fairly consistent for both discs. The direct mode tended to flatten the soundstage (less depth immediately apparant between drums and piano; opening brass not as far back in the hall), and moved the soundstage a bit to the right, providing less of a spread. The direct mode also softened the "shimmer" of the brushwork somewhat (although raising the volume might have helped here), but it definitely made the kick drums sound worse (you couldn't hear the skin as much and the "whacks" weren't as sharp). The decay of the thundersheet in the Copland was also more prominent in the normal mode. As for the infamous Telarc kettle drum, the sound of the drum's skin was more prominent in the normal mode.
The only benefits I noted in the direct mode were: a) the double bass on the Chesky disc seemed more prominent and had more of its own space ('tho the piano and drums lost some of their space), and b) the solo piano on a Rachmaninov disc (Ashkenazy, SACD downmixed to 2 channels) at one point seemed to have more slam in the bass. I'm not sure about the latter...it might have just caught my attention and may sound just as good in normal mode.
Interesting results, since they seem to be the opposite of what the directions indicate. If Direct mode outputs without a filter process, I would expect Direct to sound better. I'm not sure if my Pathos MkIII has "a narrow correspondence frequency range" but I doubt it, indicating it, too, should sound better in Direct mode. Any ideas, Neal? Misprint in the directions? I don't understand electronics, just what my ears tell me.
I have to admit I've been in this quandry before and frankly sometimes there are just no clear winners. Yes, direct mode should sound better, but I don't think it's the Esoteric either. One explanation sometimes relates to the source material. A lot of the SACD discs, new and reissued were derived from the archival PCM recordings and later remastered to DSD for SACD release. This would skew your results in my view. Fact is, we're only going to derive the full benefit of what SACD offers if the recording is true DSD from soup to nuts, like the DMP recordings for example.
Neil Gader Associate Editor The Absolute Sound
What a difference a day makes.
I think I've changed my mind. I was just listening to a recording of Bartok's Piano Concerto #1, on a Capriccio SACD. The direct and normal versions sound like two different recordings. Normal: very quick, very tight, sounds like it was recorded in a very dry hall...very exciting but instruments sound a bit "small"--not shrill, but a bit pinched. Direct: a bit slower (the instruments sound more full and rounded so take more time producing their sounds), more natural (more rounded--not pinched), and more solid like a real orchestra. Volume has to be increased as Greg (and the directions) point out, but a definite improvement. So now I don't know what my default mode should be.
You might be able to help here. Should the normal/direct modes have any impact on redbook CDs? (I haven't done any comparisons with the wide/narrow settings.) The normal/direct modes did seem to change the sound on that Telarc Copland disc, but my ears often play tricks--e.g., maybe it had to do with mismatched volume settings again. If the normal/direct modes shouldn't have any impact on redbook CDs, I'll try keeping the direct mode as my default, at least based on my experience with this Bartok disc. Anyone out there come to any conclusions about these modes??? Thanks!
I have my setting on the wide mode and normal. The reason I leave the setting to normal is that the sound level for both redbook and SACD is 3 db lower which means I have to raise the volume control higher to get the sound level I am used to. It is my understanding the direct mode does not affect normal redbook but I am not sure.
I also leave the setting on wideband as I read a German review that preferred this setting. They also preferred the direct mode on SACD.
To be honest I have not spent a lot of time listening and comparing with different discs and different settings. i enjoy the player greatly and decided just to leave the settings as I described instead of driving myself crazy trying to decide what setting is best. Enjoy the player.
Thanks, Greg. That's what I'm looking for, too...choose a setting, sit back and enjoy the music. But I was really thrown by that Bartok SACD disc (it sounds SO much better in the direct mode I can't imagine playing it again in "normal") and then the jazz SACD disc (that one seemed to lack a bit of impact in the direct mode). The manufacturer said the modes are all subjective and results will vary based on the source material.
I'm leaving the seting on wide and not even trying the narrow mode so I don't go crazy with too many choices. Wide sounds fine to me. I'll let you know if I come to any conclusions about the normal/direct modes--i.e., which may serve as the "best" setting for the widest variety of discs.
Interesting that the German review preferred the direct mode. And Neil says above that the direct mode should sound better. Neil, did you listen in direct mode for the TAS review?
I listened in both but did not get necessarily consistent results or better results in either-an issue that I ascribe to the differences in various recordings. Frankly the results are so dependant on one's own system, listening bias', even interconnects that sorry, but I hesitate to come to any rock solid conclusions. I felt the same way when I listened to a Marantz SACD player (that REG reviewed) with selectable filters-there was no right or wrong either mathematically or sonically. You just pick your poison and enjoy the music. And, let's face it, the Esoteric just sounds really really good.
Neil Gader Associate Editor The Absolute Sound
Thanks, Neil. The player sounded just fine with the factory settings (wide/normal) and I think I'm just going to leave it that way. I was delighted with the player "straight out of the box" and started going a little nuts when I changed the settings. I may change a setting if an individual disc sounds like it may be improved one way or the other, but it's time to stop fussing and enjoy the music! Thanks again for the advice.
Hi Neil,
As I'm now considering changing to a SACD player from a conventional one.
I am Currently using Meridian G08.2 and would like to change to Esoteric X-05;
Could you hightlight me the quality, characters of that two CD players....
Thanks very much..
Jackson,
Not a tough call here. the G08 is terrific, even brilliant but I maintain an SACD collection so the choice for me is a no-brainer-the Esoteric.
Neil Gader Associate Editor The Absolute Sound
Hi Neil,
You mentioned you used a Synergistic Research Tesla power cord with the X-05. Did you use the Tesla instead of the power cord that came with the X-05? Instead of the power cord that came with your power conditioner (assuming you use one)? And which Tesla did you use (there seem to be several models).
I realize components will sound different in everyone's system, but if you found a cord that was synergistic with the X-05, it might be worth investigating. FYI--the parts of my system relevant to the CD player (and this discussion) are a Pathos Mark III integrated amp, small floorstanding Triangle speakers, and a PS Audio Duet 4-outlet power conditioner.
By the way, have you heard the new PS Audio power cords that are being heavily advertised?
Thanks!
Neil,
I've narrowed my search for a top notch CD/SACD player to the Esoteric X-05 and the Ayre C-5xeMP. Unfortunately, I do not have the ability to audition these products. Any thoughts/guidance would be most appreciated.
Unfortunately I've not been able to audition these two players head-to-head. That being said from my experience listening to the Ayre at trade shows and now with its MP upgrade I've little doubt it is an even finer machine. Better than the Esoteric? I wish I could tell you. But I can tell you this-it'll have to be a truly superior machine to trump the X-05-no easy task that.
Neil Gader Associate Editor The Absolute Sound
Thanks Neil for responding. It is apparent that you have tremendous respect for the X-05. Wes Phillips/John Atkinson clearly love the Ayre. It seems I can't go wrong with either machine. Time to look for the best deal then...
for me the determining factor was how "analog" it sounded like. It has warmth and resolution, it's nuanced rather than hyperbolic. Its lack of digital artifacts makes me want to listen more closely rather than stand further back. I don't doubt for a minute the greatness of Ayre but beat the Esoteric? Very doubtful.Thanks so much for writing.
Neil Gader Associate Editor The Absolute Sound
Neil do you use the X-05 as your own personal new reference machine? If not what is your reference player and why did you chose this player over the X-05?
Best regards:
Greg Gale
Neil,
Could you say a few words comparing the X-05 to the Marantz SA-7s1. Ultimately, what sounds more like real music to your ears? Again, I cannot demo the Esoteric and would very much appreciate your thoughts.
Sorry Neil. I forgot you addressed this already. I don't know if it's just me, but I don't always see all of the previous responses- it seems to depend on which computer I am on...
No worries, JLeeMD! This happens to me all the time!
Neil Gader Associate Editor The Absolute Sound
Neil I never did get a response to my question above JLeeMD (see below):
Neil do you use the X-05 as your own personal new reference machine? If not what is your reference player and why did you chose this player over the X-05?
Greg,
I'm currently in search of a new reference but I haven't foreclosed the possibility of acquiring an Esoteric. Hopefully I'll be able to report soon regarding what I've come up with. Incidentally and though not quite of reference quality, I'v been getting some terrific results from the Simaudio Moon CD3.3 player. No SACD but excellent otherwise with a digial output and input, both sonically and operationally. Meanwhile, it's certainly nice to have the option of listening to digital via hard drive and of course vinyl–which I've been doing more of lately.
Neil Gader Associate Editor The Absolute Sound