I have a different perspective, it's not to say my perspective is "the right one" though I will say it's the right one for me.
I strive to assemble a system that reproduces the recorded performance and venue as it was performed, as accurately as possible - as if I / we were listening to the live performance being performed in our listening room. I strive for and admire a component that is ruthlessly revealing. Most live performances I've not listened to, but there are a minority of live performances I have listened to, and our moderately high end system reproduces them pretty darn well.
I strive for components that are ruthlessly revealing because I have found these components to bring the most lifelike reproduction of the music as it was recorded. Bad recording sound bad - make no mistake, and at this level of equipment performance - the quality of the recording is critical. Exposing myself, when wanting to "take in" a great performance, I've become extremely critical of software. But, with great recordings - the enjoyment of listening to a lifelike reproduction of a great performance is the reason I've invested in our audiophile system. It's for the enjoyment of (the illusion of) live music; great live music stirs our senses and moves our souls!
In addition to the quality of the recording, I've found with our system the venue of the recording is also another critical issue. Because our speakers and room aren't grand (we have Sasha I's in a 16' wide by 23' long room with the speakers across the 16' wide front wall), our system reproduces smaller acoustical performances convincingly and conversely doesn't do nearly as well with large orchestra performances (which I'm fortunate to enjoy live).
In the past when evaluating a component that "homogenized" sounds - that is, made recordings sound more similar (which helped poor recording sound better) - I noticed specific sounds of fantastic recordings weren't nearly as distinguished. I believe we can all agree that at this level of equipment performance, small performance differences (in addition to being very expensive) can be the compelling difference of reproduced music being involving as opposed to being enjoyable (all else being equal).
Without making specific references to equipment, an example of what I'm trying to convey; we were listening to a very well recorded acoustic performance, performed in a relatively small venue - which was great, like really great. Listening through my system - I mean we all really enjoyed that playback. It was a night I'll always remember. Then, I switched to the new component (which I previously experienced but didn't say anything about) and we heard a new, better defined recorded performance. Images were not only better defined and more 3D like, their separation and position, not only being able to identify what / where they were but what they were doing was dramatically improved. My guests just turned to me (after the performance was over) and smiled as if I did a bate and switch on them - all 3 of them! Even the applause after the performance was better defined and much more clearly distinguished as being in front of the performance instead of being integrated within the performance. We could even easily identify where the microphones were placed. Going back to my system before introducing the new component just wasn't an option. I relate this to when whitecamaross shared with us that he heard new things on the Neo's from a familiar recording - a performer walking across the stage which wasn't clearly defined / distinguishable with previous speakers (which I meant to ask if he felt the performance of previous speaker systems could have been improved with tweaking their set up?).
I still am very aware when I listen to really great systems because when I go back to my own system, I become very critical and - in some cases the past, I didn't enjoy my own system as much as before hearing an outrageous system.
So in conclusion for this comparison (for me and without listening to the both components), the Esoteric seems to be the component I would prefer over the Luxman.
We're all entitled to our own preferences, so long as we recognize and respect each others choices.
I strive to assemble a system that reproduces the recorded performance and venue as it was performed, as accurately as possible - as if I / we were listening to the live performance being performed in our listening room. I strive for and admire a component that is ruthlessly revealing. Most live performances I've not listened to, but there are a minority of live performances I have listened to, and our moderately high end system reproduces them pretty darn well.
I strive for components that are ruthlessly revealing because I have found these components to bring the most lifelike reproduction of the music as it was recorded. Bad recording sound bad - make no mistake, and at this level of equipment performance - the quality of the recording is critical. Exposing myself, when wanting to "take in" a great performance, I've become extremely critical of software. But, with great recordings - the enjoyment of listening to a lifelike reproduction of a great performance is the reason I've invested in our audiophile system. It's for the enjoyment of (the illusion of) live music; great live music stirs our senses and moves our souls!
In addition to the quality of the recording, I've found with our system the venue of the recording is also another critical issue. Because our speakers and room aren't grand (we have Sasha I's in a 16' wide by 23' long room with the speakers across the 16' wide front wall), our system reproduces smaller acoustical performances convincingly and conversely doesn't do nearly as well with large orchestra performances (which I'm fortunate to enjoy live).
In the past when evaluating a component that "homogenized" sounds - that is, made recordings sound more similar (which helped poor recording sound better) - I noticed specific sounds of fantastic recordings weren't nearly as distinguished. I believe we can all agree that at this level of equipment performance, small performance differences (in addition to being very expensive) can be the compelling difference of reproduced music being involving as opposed to being enjoyable (all else being equal).
Without making specific references to equipment, an example of what I'm trying to convey; we were listening to a very well recorded acoustic performance, performed in a relatively small venue - which was great, like really great. Listening through my system - I mean we all really enjoyed that playback. It was a night I'll always remember. Then, I switched to the new component (which I previously experienced but didn't say anything about) and we heard a new, better defined recorded performance. Images were not only better defined and more 3D like, their separation and position, not only being able to identify what / where they were but what they were doing was dramatically improved. My guests just turned to me (after the performance was over) and smiled as if I did a bate and switch on them - all 3 of them! Even the applause after the performance was better defined and much more clearly distinguished as being in front of the performance instead of being integrated within the performance. We could even easily identify where the microphones were placed. Going back to my system before introducing the new component just wasn't an option. I relate this to when whitecamaross shared with us that he heard new things on the Neo's from a familiar recording - a performer walking across the stage which wasn't clearly defined / distinguishable with previous speakers (which I meant to ask if he felt the performance of previous speaker systems could have been improved with tweaking their set up?).
I still am very aware when I listen to really great systems because when I go back to my own system, I become very critical and - in some cases the past, I didn't enjoy my own system as much as before hearing an outrageous system.
So in conclusion for this comparison (for me and without listening to the both components), the Esoteric seems to be the component I would prefer over the Luxman.
We're all entitled to our own preferences, so long as we recognize and respect each others choices.