Esoteric X-01 SE vs EMM CDSA SE

We compared sacd on the Esoteric X-01 and the cd layer on the 808. The X-01 had more power in the low freq., but overall we found the 808 better. I tested many sacd recordings and a lot of them make instruments and voices sound to big. And that is why sacd is often not natural sounding. People should listen to instruments first and then of a system. And then they will understand what it means. Many peole of recording studio's had to admit that this is a problem of sacd.

Leonx, I have heard SACDs where the imaging is bloated and overgrown as you suggest. Other disks where the imaging appears to be right on the button. My experience is that the bloated instrument images is mostly on SACDs that are remasters of old tapes from the 50s, e.g. Dvorak Cello Concerto with Piatigorsky/Munch, or Starker on Bach suites.
This may be just a case of conscious over-engineering of old master tapes by sound engineers that should quite frankly consider visiting a concert hall before indulging in any more fantasy pastiches of unrealistic hyper-realism.

Guido, the Piatigorski/Munch Dvorak sounds OK on vinyl. I'm surprised the sacd doesn't.

Thanks for the helpful answers!i think it would be interesting as well to hear from somebody that had done a direct comparison.Digital is, in my opinion, something tricky when it comes to comparing two machines.Its really important to compare side by side.Though its not the first time i hear that esoterics are kind of mechanical!

Leonx: I assume this was the standard X-01 you were comparing, i.e. not the Limited or D2?