Anyone still have CD/SACD Transport with Esoteric drive here?

[Windows X]

I'm curious to know if there's any audiophile comparing music server against CD/SACD transport with Esoteric drive. Maybe Esoteric CD Player, dCS Puccini, or Emm Labs CD Player with Esoteric drive is fine too. We used to hear this server sounds better or as good as that CD transport but I've never heard someone comparing to Esoteric transport which is used in highend brands before.

Lately it seems computer audio advancement is all about promoting some cool features or mods making people believe this will bring them good sound so people will buy and be satisfied that it's better than generic computer they have. Having someone with reference system to share their experience and opinions would help communities a lot.

 

[Empirical Audio]

With transports, the only thing that matters is jitter. Don't let anyone convince you otherwise. This is the physics. No transport can match the jitter of a good outboard re-clocker, so if you add this to the transport, the transport is not important anymore. Does not matter what the transport is and what type of drive is inside. Similarly with a server that outputs S/PDIF coax. Jitter is still the main concern and an outboard re-clocker fixes that.

The difference with servers is that that there is a secondary concern, and that is the playback software/codec. The playback/server software can change the data or the offset, impacting the sound quality. If you try different playback softwares, like Jriver, Amarra, Audirvana etc., you will find that each has it's own sound signature. Even one release to the next of different versions of the SAME software will sound different. It's not just the user interface that prompts users to select one playback app over another, it's also the sound quality. I, for instance use an older version of Amarra that I find more live sounding than anything released prior or since. This version is a bit more buggy with hi-res than the newer versions, but sounds better. It is unfortunately not available anymore. Since I am in the biz, I have tried lots of different player apps and several servers using S/PDIF, USB and Ethernet interfaces.

The big advantage of computer audio is that you can achieve the same low jitter as a re-clocker added to a transport, but in addition, you can get bit-perfect hi-res file playback. The difference between a 44.1 track on a CD transport and the same track at 24/96 on a good computer server is obvious. Much more lifelike, particularly vocalists. The re-clocker on the transport however is a close second because the best scenario is to up-sample to 24/96 with the re-clocker. This forces your DAC to use a more satisfying sounding digital filter.

The first thing that people will claim is that a re-clocker that up-samples is not as good as bit-perfect playback. Used to be the case, but no longer true. With the right re-clocker, you will not tell the difference between the bit-perfect track and the up-sampled track. The jitter is much more important than the up-sampling algorithm.

The second thing that many people and many manufacturers will claim is that many modern DACs are immune to incoming jitter because there is a re-clocker inside. Don't believe it. Either they are deaf or their systems are not up to the task. In my 23 years of designing audio gear and exhibiting at shows, I have NEVER heard ANY DAC that is totally immune to incoming jitter.

Steve N.

 

[Windows X]

With transports, the only thing that matters is jitter. Don't let anyone convince you otherwise. This is the physics. No transport can match the jitter of a good outboard re-clocker, so if you add this to the transport, the transport is not important anymore. Does not matter what the transport is and what type of drive is inside. Similarly with a server that outputs S/PDIF coax. Jitter is still the main concern and an outboard re-clocker fixes that.

The difference with servers is that that there is a secondary concern, and that is the playback software/codec. The playback/server software can change the data or the offset, impacting the sound quality. If you try different playback softwares, like Jriver, Amarra, Audirvana etc., you will find that each has it's own sound signature. Even one release to the next of different versions of the SAME software will sound different. It's not just the user interface that prompts users to select one playback app over another, it's also the sound quality. I, for instance use an older version of Amarra that I find more live sounding than anything released prior or since. This version is a bit more buggy with hi-res than the newer versions, but sounds better. It is unfortunately not available anymore. Since I am in the biz, I have tried lots of different player apps and several servers using S/PDIF, USB and Ethernet interfaces.

The big advantage of computer audio is that you can achieve the same low jitter as a re-clocker added to a transport, but in addition, you can get bit-perfect hi-res file playback. The difference between a 44.1 track on a CD transport and the same track at 24/96 on a good computer server is obvious. Much more lifelike, particularly vocalists. The re-clocker on the transport however is a close second because the best scenario is to up-sample to 24/96 with the re-clocker. This forces your DAC to use a more satisfying sounding digital filter.

The first thing that people will claim is that a re-clocker that up-samples is not as good as bit-perfect playback. Used to be the case, but no longer true. With the right re-clocker, you will not tell the difference between the bit-perfect track and the up-sampled track. The jitter is much more important than the up-sampling algorithm.

The second thing that many people and many manufacturers will claim is that many modern DACs are immune to incoming jitter because there is a re-clocker inside. Don't believe it. Either they are deaf or their systems are not up to the task. In my 23 years of designing audio gear and exhibiting at shows, I have NEVER heard ANY DAC that is totally immune to incoming jitter.

Steve N.

I don't let anyone convince me. I do use my ears to listen. And I'm opened mind enough to listen to people sharing their experience as long as it's what I'm interested in. If you ever try comparing your computer audio solution against dCS or Esoteric stack or any transport using Esoteric drive with the same DAC, please let me know.

Regards,
Keetakawee

 

[Empirical Audio]

There were dCS Vivaldi stacks in the exhibit rooms either side of my exhibit room at a past RMAF show. I listened to both of these systems. Based on this I believe my jitter is lower and my DAC is superior. I've listened to hundreds of different transports at shows. Nothing ever came close to my computer audio SQ. I'm happy to measure ANY Esoteric transport on my bench for direct jitter. Here is how my Oppo fared:

https://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=154408.0

100 times more jitter than the re-clocked signal.

Here is a close-up of the re-clocker jitter:

https://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=157348.0

The re-clocker has 30 day money-back, less shipping, so you are only out about $20 to do what you want.

Steve N.

 

[Windows X]

I heard your opinion now and I couldn't say I agree that you can believe that your Transport/DAC can be better without direct comparison on the same system.

If you want to convince me, I'd at least want to see your impressions with direct comparison. I brought my server to Esoteric distributor place from time to time to do direct comparison. There was time when I thought my server is better and there was time when I bought Esoteric P-03/D-03 just to find they sounded worse than P-05/D-05 model in my room.

I'm not interested to see your tests with Oppo but Esoteric transport or device using that. I'm also not a fan of reclocker too and I use master clock with 10M Rubidium clock.

Regards,
Keetakawee

 

[microstrip]

With transports, the only thing that matters is jitter. Don't let anyone convince you otherwise. This is the physics. No transport can match the jitter of a good outboard re-clocker, so if you add this to the transport, the transport is not important anymore. Does not matter what the transport is and what type of drive is inside. Similarly with a server that outputs S/PDIF coax. Jitter is still the main concern and an outboard re-clocker fixes that. (...)

IMHO with transports the only thing that matters is perceived sound quality. Since long we know that we can not explain our sound preferences with physics, particularly with digital.

Unfortunately reading opinions will mostly inform you about the writer preferences - you will need to listen to find what you enjoy and prefer.

 

[SCAudiophile]

Yes...I still have an Esoteric P-02 Transport and D-02, using external 10Mhz extreme low phase noise OCXO master clock to control the setup.

I've compared with top flight music servers also with streaming audio and found that this combo properly cabled and clocked spinning CD, XRCD, XRCD24, K2HD and SACD outperformed server-based audio in my system as well as streaming audio. To be clear, that was limited to a limited set of test subjects and a while back to there may be top contenders today for which I would have a different experience.

I do plan on keeping an Esoteric transport-based system with DAC and clock as the center of this system due to a large disc collection that would be untenable to rip (would take years) and a disk farm to store & secure properly. A move is planned this year from a stereo DAC (dual-mono internal chassis structure), the D-02 to a pair of D1s and ultimately replace the P-02 transport with a P1. My choice to stay with P1 and D1s versus jumping right into the latest gen just announced, the P1x / D1x is deliberate....

 

[thedudeabides]

There were dCS Vivaldi stacks in the exhibit rooms either side of my exhibit room at a past RMAF show. I listened to both of these systems. Based on this I believe my jitter is lower and my DAC is superior.

When one listens to music, one is listening to the "entire" system, not just the DAC. All of the equipment variables, room acoustics, etc. obviously impacts what one hears. Your claims are simply not supportable based on this basic fact. And to make that claim based on show conditions further compromises your stated position and credibility.

 

[Empirical Audio]

This is certainly true. I will never have a Vivaldi stack in my system, so this is the best I can do. Both of these rooms were $150K or more systems, one was the Wilson room. They had all of the room acoustic treatments. They did sound very good, don't get me wrong. Just not as live as my room. This is the only realistic way I can do this comparison. I figure multiple rooms with the same gear gives me a pretty good idea of the performance. I would not discount show systems. My room at shows usually sounds almost as good as at home.

 

[SuperDave]

Hi Windows X,
I agree with what Micro said. I use an Esoteric K-01X with G-01 clock and can compare with an Aurender W20. I'm not saying one is better than the other but I have always preferred the Esoteric. Some things to consider, I have dialed in the cd player for years and have used the W20 for casual listening and until now have not tried to make any improvements to the Aurender other than a power cord. The cd player and clock are also connected to my grounding station and regardless of opinions on grounding, I hear significantly improved sound. I recently purchased and in-line ethernet filter and linear power supply that closed the delta between the Esoteric and W20 when streaming. My current ethernet cable has served me well but there are much better options I'm looking into now. Like Mark mentioned above, I have lots of cds. I grew up in the cd era and will never be without one. The esoteric mechanism is a well built spinner but I think a W20 into a Select II or DCS stack would sound better but that's speculation on my part.

Dave

 

[Empirical Audio]

If you want to optimize Ethernet, here is how to do it:

http://www.empiricalaudio.com/computer-audio/recommended-systems

read line 2

 

[marslo]

I have La Fontaine with Esoteric VRDS neo mechanism, listen often to sacd’s played with La Fontaine but I use it also occasionaly as a pure transport to my Pacific DAC using BNC cable.

However, I listen mainly to files fed from W20 to my Pacific DAC, using unpowered usb cable.
I put native dsd and best hires pcm above cds played with combo La Fontaine/Pacific but for regular Red Book resolution cds have a marginal edge imho.

The difference in my system and for my ears is not huge so I listen mostly to ripps made with DB Poweramp and to hires pcm and dsd bought at nativedsd.com or ripped from my sacds with Pioneer BDP 160.
I have also an analog source I listen to on weekends and I like to compare different formats and presentations to widen my audiophile experiences.

 

[LenWhite]

I've owned a EMM Labs XDS1 since 2011 and upgraded it to the to the v2 in 2015. I listen primarily to SACD discs as I prefer to own physical media. I do use the XDS1 internal DAC connected via Kimber Kable/AG to a VG laptop optimized for digital sound. Both configurations produce an enjoyable listening experience, but I prefer listening to the discs. I have a Analogue Productions DSD file of the Holly Cole:Temptations album and also own the Analogue Productions SACD version. I prefer the SACD as it sounds more analogue. I know EMM Labs has a highly rated DA2 DAC that many audiophiles rave about, and it's likely extremely good. But I'll stick with my XDS1 and physical media discs. For me, Reference Recordings, Mobile Fidelity, & Analogue Productions make the absolute best recordings and being retired I'm able to enjoy my system daily.

 

[Empirical Audio]

I have La Fontaine with Esoteric VRDS neo mechanism, listen often to sacd’s played with La Fontaine but I use it also occasionaly as a pure transport to my Pacific DAC using BNC cable.

However, I listen mainly to files fed from W20 to my Pacific DAC, using unpowered usb cable.
I put native dsd and best hires pcm above cds played with combo La Fontaine/Pacific but for regular Red Book resolution cds have a marginal edge imho.

The difference in my system and for my ears is not huge so I listen mostly to ripps made with DB Poweramp and to hires pcm and dsd bought at nativedsd.com or ripped from my sacds with Pioneer BDP 160.
I have also an analog source I listen to on weekends and I like to compare different formats and presentations to widen my audiophile experiences.

For USB, there is nothing like the improvement I got with the SOtM USBultra:

https://sotm-usa.com/collections/ultra-series-mods/products/sms-200-mod-tx-usbultra

Before that, I had mostly abandoned USB for Ethernet. This device brings them on-par.

Steve N.

 

[Windows X]

Empirical Audio, I recommend you to bring your creation to any highend audio shop with Esoteric transport drive. You don't need to own and test in your room. I used to bring my server and computer audio products I bought including yours to compare with ultra highend CD transport at shop.

Few days ago I also tested some very highend server (costing over $10k that just released recently) at my friend's place. You don't need to own it or bring it to your room. Just bring yours to there and see for yourself. The reason why computer audio products don't develop as it should be was because most manufacturers refused to challenge the best of CD transports and overcome the difference.

And USB sounds much much better on very good built server. Even company who used to promote ethernet said so himself that certain USB improvement was heaven sent. Those who know about IT and network deeply enough all know why USB is better and why it's bad for most commonly flawed practices.

https://www.psaudio.com/pauls-posts/heaven-sent/

Regards,
Keetakawee

 

[jackson_k]

Yes...I still have an Esoteric P-02 Transport and D-02, using external 10Mhz extreme low phase noise OCXO master clock to control the setup.

I've compared with top flight music servers also with streaming audio and found that this combo properly cabled and clocked spinning CD, XRCD, XRCD24, K2HD and SACD outperformed server-based audio in my system as well as streaming audio. To be clear, that was limited to a limited set of test subjects and a while back to there may be top contenders today for which I would have a different experience.

I do plan on keeping an Esoteric transport-based system with DAC and clock as the center of this system due to a large disc collection that would be untenable to rip (would take years) and a disk farm to store & secure properly. A move is planned this year from a stereo DAC (dual-mono internal chassis structure), the D-02 to a pair of D1s and ultimately replace the P-02 transport with a P1. My choice to stay with P1 and D1s versus jumping right into the latest gen just announced, the P1x / D1x is deliberate....

Hi,,, I am looking into the P2 transport from ESOTERIC as well, and connected it to the Mutec REF 10 , do you find that this combination still provide the best audio purity and quality ?

 

[jackson_k]

Also on the Streamer like for example an AURALIC G2 do you think it sounds better via AES or USB ?

 

[jackson_k]

For USB, there is nothing like the improvement I got with the SOtM USBultra:

https://sotm-usa.com/collections/ultra-series-mods/products/sms-200-mod-tx-usbultra

Before that, I had mostly abandoned USB for Ethernet. This device brings them on-par.

Steve N.

I also just ordered a SOTEM USBULTRA to be connected to my REF10 clock : ) ,,,, but do you feel that the SOTM switch is equally important ?

 

[SCAudiophile]

Hi,,, I am looking into the P2 transport from ESOTERIC as well, and connected it to the Mutec REF 10 , do you find that this combination still provide the best audio purity and quality ?

Good Day.....I have never owned the Mutec REF10 myself so not qualified to answer this but other owners report it to be a great 10 Mhz clock source and yes, if your choice were Mutec, this would be the best way to drive the Esoteric Transport and DAC as they both excel with a 10Mhz master clock input in my experience to an even higher level that using a 75-ohm word clock input (frequency multiple (of 44.1) reclocking up to my personal favorite with the new Esoteric equipment (for 75-ohm word reclocking, "MCLK" frequency which is 22.xxxx Mhz). Again, as well as my system has performed with OCXO and Rb-based clocks that put out 75-ohm word reclocking, the Esoteric gear performs best (IMHO and listening tests) with 10 Mhz 50-ohm true master clock input. Candidates for this would be the REF10 you mentioned, Cybershaft OP17 (or above) Limited2 or Ultimate from the new line of their products similar to what I am running or other high-quality, OCXO-based, low phase noise implementation.

BTW...by 'P2' I assume you mean the later generation Esoteric P-02 Transport and D-02 DAC (I have these) or the newer P-02X and D-02X, not the old Esoteric 'P2' Transport as I have no idea from those years about the 'P2' model.

 

[thedudeabides]

A FWIW comment. No bashing intended. Had the Esoteric K01 for a couple of months and the Dcs Puccini (sold both of them after owning each for a couple of months) and now have the Luxman D06-U. The LUX transport is the quietist transport of the three.