Haha,
It is true, the esoteric SA-60 is really beautifully built, all external metal part, only tray is plastic. It is an interesting comparison with my oppo 95.
First obvious change is that it sounds like Hi-Res for both CDs and SACDs (latter is obviously hi res) but the oppo, SACDs can sound like CDs and more fuzzy/blurred. The resolution of the esoteric is amazing, so much that at first it feels mechanical, hard and lacks air, so ultra-detail it may feel rather analytical. The CDs sound as clear as SACDs and sound stage is amazing, instruments all located in appropriate places.
So the soundscape is really different from oppo which sounds warmer, more fuzzy, but resolution is not as good, and there is some haze which I thin I was used to and comfortable with and so when I hear the esoteric it feels as if the esoteric is too dry/hard and mechanical.
But with further listening, as the esoteric warms up again (was not used by previous owner for probably a yr ?) and setting up with full tube gear, its muscality shows up more, and mellows out (or I get used to it?) Despite sounding brighter, a bit more forward soundstage it is actually not fatiguing at all, and no harshness, no high freq roll off, all of which exists in the oppo often.
But it tends to be less forgiving, as poorly recorded CDs/SACDs are not really sounding much better than oppo and may feel worse, so seems to highlight some weaknesses more (or just perceived as worse when compared with other better recordings that now sound amazing). This is somehow more so with SACDs:
The high quality pure native DSD recordings sound really amazing! - perfect soundstage, totally analogue, instruments all well layered and in clear positions. Can even reproduce complex opera with full orchestra, multiple singers without loss of focus or fatigue, which often plagues the oppo when music gets a bit overwhelmed.
SACDs review can be tricky as recording qualities are very variable even in the same time period, meaning you can get poor recordings even now after technology has been there for ? 10 yrs or longer while there are excellent recordings coming out still.
The esoteric highlights the suboptimal DSD recordings very well, it is not interested in sugar coating/covering the flaws at all.
For DSD remastered from 24/96Hz - there is more grain in the tone, and has rougher edges, sound stage is usually narrower, a bit more digital/harsher. Just sounds more like CDs. The oppo also shows this but not as obvious, its fatter/warmer tone masks these better and can seem more tolerable, and since the real DSD recordings do not sound as superb, the difference between true DSD and PCM remastered recordings are not as great.
The DXD remastered to DSD recordings sound very good too, without the issue with lower res PCM transfer, though I still need to listen to them more to compare.
Also one thing it does quite well with CDs is that it seems to make recordings with poor resolution on CDs better than before at least on a recording I tried, tends to make CDs sound like hi-res, but perhaps may lose some warmth. Have not tired many poor recordings yet.
Bear in mind my comparison with oppo is from memory as I cannot really do A/B comparing easily (needs to unhook/and rehook, and I have limited space for doing that. The opp 95 is supposedly inferior to 205 and it is stock, unmodified. Not sure how a 205 would compare, esp if it is modified.
For M-ch I have not had much chance doing and my setup is suboptimal but the brief tests I did with pentatone recordings were amazing/jaw dropping on some great recordings! I may try some a/b comparison with M-ch as no one online seems to have done that (don’t blame them, it is hard work with all the wires!). M-ch is really taking one to another level of listening that it warrants a separate discussion thread, once you try it, will never go back to 2-ch... .
hope this helps anyone out there who wants to know oppo v s esoteric
