2. digital
  3. 1099737755

Esoteric DV-50: Any cdp's Significantly better?

Is there are anyone out there who has compared the Esoteric DV-50 to a number of dedicated red book only players (or other universal's) and found one that is SIGNIFICANTLY better?

I stress significantly because in my humble opinion the redbook playback (if comparison unit is just a cd cd player only )must be significantly better to justify losing DVD-A, SACD and DVD-Video capability.

I keep hearing there are better one box solutions and being a die hard 2 channel fan I would sell my DV-50 if I found a player in the same price range that sounds significantly better. But every time I do an AB comparision to other well respected units the DV-50 has slayed each and every one.

So far, it has eaten the lunch of the Classe CDP-10, Ayre CX-7, Linn Ikemi, Cairn Fog Vers. 2, Cary 306/300, Arcam DV 27A and CD 33T, Myryad CD 600, etc. It even betters a Sony SCD 777ES/MF Tri-Vista 21 transport/dac combo that I previously owned. I'm only comparing the DV-50 to single box cd or universal players, but I just wanted to mention the Sony/MF combo. I'm sure there are some dac/transport combo's that will handily beat the DV 50.

Some may say that the DV 50 should beat all the above because the of price point ($5,500 vs. average price of $3,000 for the above players). But I disagree since conventional wisdom says that stand alone players (especially with the pedigree of those mentioned above) should produce better redbook than a universal player trying to be a jack of all trades. Only the DV 27A does video plus audio. By the way, I was very impressed with the 27A as just a cd player. Of all the above I would say the Ayre was the best.

Next on my list is the Electrocompaniet EMC 1UP and the Resolution Audio Opus 21. However, I must tell you I am really impressed with the DV 50 and all the great reviews are absolutely true. I've noticed that many people who are using it or comparing to other players are using the RCA analog outs instead of the balanced outs. There is a significant improvement in sound if you use the balanced outs and I'm only interested in hearing comments from people who have compared it against other players using the balanced outs on the DV-50.

My system components are as follows:

B&W N803's speakers & HTM-1 center
Cary Cinema 5 (5 x 200) amp
Anthem D1 Statement pre/pro
Esoteric DV 50
Acoustic Zen Satori Shotgun speaker wire
Nirvana SX balanced interconnects from DV-50 to Anthem
Acoustic Zen Matrix reference II interconnects from D1 to Cary
No after market power cords or isolation equipment

My system sounds great! Those who comment please make sure to specify what specific improvements you heard over the DV 50 and what cdp were you comparing it against.

AVGURU
avguru
aplhifi
515 posts
 
Guidocorona, as I mentioned, there is no "true balanced" designs. Why balanced sounds better to many is because both phases are eventually added at the end - the speaker. Just like paralleling multiple devices (DACs, components, etc.) you are getting the sum of them which results in better sound. Wheter you are going to parallel two single ended stages or use balanced design, the end result (sonically) should be the same when it comes to home applpications. Of course, the balanced design rejects all kinds of common signals making it suitable for Pro requirements. To design a "true balanced" I will have to use two triodes driving the output transformer. This will create all kinds of problems due to tubes mismatch. Even if you get exactly matched tubes, they will deteriorate differently over their life span. This can be somewhat compensated by NFB but I don't like this idea. With the component-less single ended to balanced conversion, you will get exactly the same benefit of the so called "true balanced" designs (sonic-wise).

Regards,
Alex
guidocorona
4,298 posts
 
Thank you Alex for elaborating on your design philosophy. Guido
Ag insider logo xs@2x
aldavis
202 posts
 
Avguru,
The Conrad Johnson Act 2 and ART are single ended designs.They are(arguably) the best in the world.
NUFF SAID
avguru OP
116 posts
 
Aldavis,

You did not read my post very carefully. I specifically talked about units that were DESIGNED to sound better balanced. The units I made mention of were all made to sound better balanced. The owners manuals say the same.

Additionally, the better mfg's will offer a cdp that has both connections. The clear implication is go balanced for better fidelity...but should you not have a pre/pro with balanced inputs we will offer you rca's. That's a smart marketing move as they don't want to miss out on customers who may not have balanced ancillary equipment.

So, I never said RCA could not sound good or as good as balanced. I'm sure the two players you mentioned sound quite good from RCA outputs. What I am saying is that in the majority of cases where balanced ouputs are made available there will be a clear and audible improvement over rca...especially when both are offered on the same unit! That has definitely been my experience.

I'm dropping out of the "balanced vs. rca" argument because it gets away from the original motivation of my thread. Furthermore, I'm starting to see that many audiophiles out here don't have balanced equipment (or have never owned balanced equipment)so my argument falls on unqualified ears.

Unless you have owned multiple pre/pro's, amps and cdp's that offer both options and have compared them extensively (like I have) by switching back and forth between both connections you wouldn't know there is an advantage.

AVGURU
springbok10
711 posts
 
I agree with Avguru. I too have tried a DV-50, ML 32, Krell KMA 160 KMA single-ended vs balanced and the balanced was clearly "better" to my ears. So I went to a completely balanced pre-amp and amp that were designed to be balanced preferentially. (Atma-Sphere)I won't go back, which is why the APL 3910 is of less interest to me than it may be to those with single-ended systems.
More to discover