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
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.
Hi guys, a few comments in relation to the above posts. Very interesting discussion by the way!

Dob, I had the unit at home on dealer demo and am embarrassed to say I didnt take any notes on which settings I used. I did not play around too much though as it was busy enough doing A/B testing of various tracks with my current cdp. Maybe you are right on the use of CD upconversion.

Cerrot, I have sent the SA 50 back to the dealers, but he is going to let me listen again after it has had more break-in time. In the meantime I am listening to a Sim Audio SuperNova as the next home demo. I also run balanced throughout (amp is fully balanced). I used Acoustic Zen Matrix Ref2 with the SA-50.

Gsherwood53. Ha, I have a Marantz SA11s1 as well. Let me know what differences you hear between the two players. My comments above were generally formed by my A/B testing between the SA50 and the Marantz. YMMV.

Anyway, it's not quite game set and match yet. As I said, I really wanted to like this player, especially given it's flexibility. We'll see what the next round of testing brings.