EMM DCC2/CDSD versus Esoteric X-01

Please bear with me if these questions are obvious or been answered: I am hearing that the X-01 is a serious competitor, and preferred by anyone posting a comparison, that I have seen, to the EMM DCC2+ EMM transport and may be preferable economically/functionally in that it 1) costs less ($12K vs $18K); 2) is in one chassis 3) plays CD/SACD out of the box, which the EMM DCC2 will only do with a mod Phillips transport, which is getting savaged for reliability on this forum or a $8K EMM transport, which is reportedly sigtnificantly better.
Do I have the facts straight (the prices are what I gather from posts in this forum to be list prices)
If I am wrong or if anyone can correct me, I would appreciate it.
Secondly, has anyone heard the X-01 vs EMM DCC2 + EMM transport and preferred the EMM?

Thank you Bombaywalla for your keen observation. I have reasons to believe that all three devices were in a similar state of warmup. They all were stationed in their regular spots at this dealer's showroom and the consultant asserted that the equipment is left on continuously. You are correct, I did not listen to the Burmester with the Python powerchord. The reason is that the X-01 with its stock chord so much outdistanced the Burmester that I felt no immediate incentive looking at that device any further. I do agree though, that had I had more time I would have indulged in a more rigorous matrix test with every device undergoing the same environment permutations.
But as an old software engineer, with years of test management on my back, I also know that good system tests take a lot of time and effort.
It is quite possible that the Burmester may have improved with the application of the Python and Black Diamond Racing Platform, but I had already determined that stock X-01 was extremely superior to stock Burmester. I am interested in applying tweaks to a winning device, not in ameliorating a looser. I should also like to point out that the Bel Canto PL-1A was already setup with the aformentioned augmentations and yet it did not perform as well as X-01.

I am not in a position of commenting on EMM Labs gear, as I have never had the opportunity of auditioning it. I would rather pass the baton to MGOTTLIEB on the subject.

Please note that the day after my marathon audition I did go back to the dealer and auditioned the X-01 connected to the AC by an Anaconda power chord and resting on an HRS isolation platform. THis time the device was in a slightly larger and more resonant room and was driving a Burmester Reference series system and a larger pair of Utopias (don't remember the model but they costed 30K).

I did experience further tightening of the bass and opening of the sound stage. On the other hand transients were becoming excessive and were thus uncharacteristic of a Baroque ensemble. As too many variables had changed, it is rather difficult to guess which component of the new setup was responsible for both the positive and negative changes.

Finally, as the Burmester 001 has been available for a fair amount of time and the X-01 has just become available, It is rather likely that the 001 was more broken in than the X-01. But I will call the dealer and will ask the consultantt.

Guido

In my system, UX-1, EMM DCC2, Wadia 861, Ayre CD-5EX all at the same time. The rest of the system is McIntosh MC2000 and Audio Research Ref2 Mk2, HRX rack, Jm Lab Alto be, Shunyata6, Transparent super xl speaker wires, and either Harmonic Tech Pro Silway 2 or Synergistic Designer Ref balanced cable.

I have to preface my statements by saying that the room is very bright to begin with but very open. Slap echo is probably not a strong enough word, more like "smack echo".

First compared UX-1 to Wadia 861, the Wadia was a bit smoother, less revealing and realistic, smaller sound stage, more accurate base, but not as defined or organic in the mids and highs.

I then compared the UX-01 to a demo EMM labs... the EMM labs had MUCH less brightness, much more listenable, my wife, who was in the kitchen, asked "how much is that one going to cost us"? The EMM glitched, and for 17k, I am not going to buy a unit that glitches in the first month., so I deferred purchasing it, although it is still an option at this point if I can be convinced it has been fixed.

Then I compared UX-01 to brand new Ayre that I bought, as, in the final analysis, the UX-01 just sounds too metallic, for lack of a better work, on guitar, edgy and bright for my tastes long term. Out of the box, the Ayre is just not a happy camper, but I have been told to give it a long warmup (at least a hundred hours) It seems to emphasis leading edge transients at the expense of everything else, and is much less intelligible and full than the UX-01, but I will try it again this weekend after breaking it in.

What I heard, in a store, mind you, that absolutely made my foot tap, was the new DCS one piece unit. The UX-01 was in a setup similar to mine, and I noticed the same "metallic" coloring, but the DCS sounded much more organic, and "true to life". I know this doesn;t necessarily help you with the X-01, but they are of the same family I imagine

Thank you Chrisla. I have auditioned the DCS single box CD/SACD player as well and will confirm that it does sound most likely sweeter than the UX-1. You can read my findings at:
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?aamps&1123254379&openfrom&58&4#58
I should point out though, that I did not have the opportunity of comparing the DCS to the X-01 directly, nor to the UX-1. In fact, I have not had the opportunity of hearing the UX-1 at all up to now.
It is my understanding though that, in order to maintain the same price point as the X-01 while adding DVD video and audio capability, Teac may have committed the mortal sin of audio compromise, by cutting in half the number of audio DAC chips (Burr Brown 1704) and performing other minor lobotomies to the circuitry. It has been said in some quarter that for redbook and SACD the UX-1 is c.ca 70% as good as the X-01.
Since my original listening in NYC, my enthusiasm for the X-01 convinced a friend of mine to obtain one for his system. In turn he 'forced me' to listen to his unit repeatedly and prolongedly, as a form of sadistic audiophilic retribution, until, under considerable pressure of course [chuckles!], I broke down and purchased an X-01 for myself.
The creature arrived one week ago and has now completed the 120th hour of breaking, with approximately the same amount planned for the coming week.
Amazing sound altogether: full bodied with a spectacular stage and a wealth of subtle detail. Excellent yet controlled dynamics and transient, but also with a heartless propensity to expose the excesses of recording engineers. Heartbreakingly beautiful on a well balanced recording, will get every nuance of residual sound on a muffled recording, but will not attempt to mask the screaming strings and brass and screeching voices in excessively bright recordings.
Quite sensitive to interconnects, my X-01 told me yesterday in no uncertain terms that it much prefers to tango with my Gutwire Synchrony IC than with my slightly older Cardas Neutral Reference. Too bad said I, Neutral Reference it will be, for the next few days, while I take the Gutwire on an auditioning trip to Salt Lake City It is being rumoured that I will have an opportunity to listen to an X-01 controlled by the meticulous 'baton' of a Teac G0S Master Clock. I will report my findings here on Audiogon.
But enough ranting for now. Talk to you all soon. Guido

Yup, wish I had a chance to have listened to the X-01. When I went in the store, they "forgot" to mention that unit and I was not, at the time, as well informed and assumed, based on the info I gave them, that I gots the 2 channel machine. Dang. Owning a cal lab... I took home a cesium beam standard (Hewlett Packard 5061a) to synch the EMM and Esoteric to, it made a much bigger difference on the Esoteric..much better pace, a little better soundstage, and made very little noticeable difference on the Meitner, maybe, just maybe slightly steadier sound stage. If only the doggone thing hadn't glitched twice:( it would be happily escounced in a new home.