Esoteric SA-50 SACD player, Is it for me?


I am currently using a Mark Levinson 39, which I like.

But I am interested in trying High Resolution digital.

The SA-50 seems to offer may features that I am looking for, balanced variable output and digital inputs for PC audio and a SqueezeBox, USB , etc.

I listen to classical only, use ML331 amp direct ,no preamp.
Speakers, Ariel 10T.

Does anyone know how the variable output on the SA-10 is implemented? Analog like the ML or digitally?

Would this be a good choice? Are there other units I should consider?

Thanks for any input.

Ken
kenyonbm
Just spent two days listening to the SA-50 in my rig, (SimAudio/JmLab Focal). Didnt do it for me. I accept that the unit was not fully broken-in (dealer had been playing it on repeat for the past week before I got my hands on it) but I suspect that the overall sound would not change enough for my ears. Very detailed, good frequency extension but for my tastes relatively uninvolving and lacking emotion. Sounded a little harsh on the top and lacked some drive and impact on recordings like Brubecks "Take Five" (you know, when the drums kick in). Many things no doubt would improve (especially the slight harshness) as the player was broken-in but the lack of synergy with my set-up was the killer. I really wanted to like it!
PS, it improved quite a lot with a power regenerator, more focus and separation of instruments. Seems more sensitive to power supply than other players I've used.
Hello Glenn,

In my subjective opinion:

1 D_SLY filter is much better then FIR. Not even close

2 CD: No upconversion - get more "air" in the top but lifeless presentation. Genkides wrote: "...for my tastes relatively uninvolving and lacking emotion" but did not say what set up he used... If CD and upconverting then I agree..

3 CD - processed as SACD - loosing PRAT, very bad

SACD - best to be left alonse as PCM convesion intoduces piercing sound (for my ears) in the highs...

All The Best
Rafael
My Esoteric (X03SE) sounded horrible until I went to over 1,000 hours. It is also very dependent on good power cord and conditioner. Genkides-I wouldn't sent it back, yet. Also, balanced out is the way to go. You do need good IC's.
Thanks Raphael.

Cerrot. Re balanced out...I have read many threads on Esoteric mid price models (SA10, SA50, X-03, and X-05) and one of those threads dealt with bal'd vs. SE out. The writer said he found SE better sound wise. Also that he checked that out with Esoteric reps and they agreed.

Wish I could recall what thread or model was the subject. And I agree, most people feel balanced is better.

FWIW, I used bal'd and SE'd between my Marantz SA11S1 and Jeff Rowland Capri preamp...I cannot tell any difference.
Gsherwood53-could be system synergy. I run balanced throughout. I used Tara labs The One balanced & single ended and the sound was, to me, better with balannced. Background was dead black, highs more extended and deeper soundstage. The SE sounded very good but the balanced just sounded better, in my system. The placements of instruments was better and it was much easier to hear separate violins within a group of four with the balanced.