Robert Harley's Esoteric SA-50 Review

mjgmjg -- Sun, 05/30/2010 - 14:19

I have read Robert Harley's Esoteric SA-50 review in the absolute sound June/July issue two or three times now. I have also read positive reviews on the 6moons.com site and soundstage.com by John Crossett. My problem is I keep flip flopping back and forth between the Esoteric SA-50 and the McIntosh MCD500. Could I please get the thoughts of those who and heard both. I am looking for a unit that sounds superb, is well built to last and will be able to process music files from a server using the Sonos system. I know that both the above CDP's can do that. My current system is comprised of a McIntosh MC402 amp, C2300 pre amp and the Magnepan 1.7 speakers. The speakers are unpacked but not connected yet. Thank you for any suggestions/wisdom you would like to pass on. One benfit of the MCD500 is being able to control it's functions with the same remote. Not a biggy but nice.

Thanks again,
Mike

danielaparker -- Sun, 05/30/2010 - 19:22

The SA-50 is Esoteric's entry level CD SACD player, whose main interest is that it also supports a USB interface. When I auditioned the SA-50, it was quickly apparent that the USB interface was okay but not great, and RH's review is interesting because it explains why.
If you want CD SACD, the X-05 sounds better, and if you want a USB interface, the D-07 sounds much better. For the life of me, as an Esoteric owner and someone who has auditioned the entire Esoteric stack, I can't understand RH's ringing platitudes, "packed with sophisticated technology", "an extremely high value product that provides a multifaceted answer to the needs of todays's complex digital sources", "delivers musicality with a tremendous sense of palpability, clarity, transparency and resolution", etc. etc. etc. This is all a little over the top and mostly reads like ad copy, although in fairness the one piece of information you need to know, that the USB interface is flawed, is in the review. Given that, it's hard to see why anybody would choose this player.
-- Daniel

mjgmjg -- Mon, 05/31/2010 - 18:52

Daniel,
Thank you for your comments. Good sounding CD and SACD is what I am looking for. I would also like to be able to have a CDP that I can send FLAC music files to and use it's internal DACs to my pre amp. I'll take a look at the X-05.

Sam -- Mon, 05/31/2010 - 19:22

I agree with Daniel.

Robert Harley -- Mon, 05/31/2010 - 21:14

I mention in the review the product's limitations (poor USB sound, won't decode the highest resolution files), as well as the fact that the X-05 delivers better sound but without the SA-50's extensive feature set.

danielaparker -- Wed, 06/02/2010 - 07:31

I was looking at the SA-50 review in the "Guide to Disc Players, Dacs, and Music Servers", is that the same review? The review in the Guide doesn't mention the X-05.

I note that Neil Gader's review of the X-05, also in the Guide, concludes with "There aren't enough superlatives to describe this machine ...", possibly because they've all been used up on the SA-50 :-) But seriously, when RH uses up all the superlatives on this entry level player ("delivers musicality with a tremendous sense of palpability, clarity, transparency and resolution [etc.]"), what words does he have left to distinguish the better sounding X-05, the X-03, the X-03+G-03X, the P-05+D-05, the P-05+D-05+G-03X, the X-01, the X-01 + G-0Rb? I'd really like to see a consistent vocabularly for describing products at different levels, whether measurements, numerical scores, or rankings, otherwise how are we as readers supposed to interpret this stuff?

I don't want this to come across as too negative, because RH's review contained good information about the USB interface, which I sure didn't see in the six moons review. But why go so overboard in the subjective commentary? Who's driving this? readers? editors?

(I'm finding I can get around the spam filter by writing a little, editing a little.)

-- Daniel