Esoteric K01: What are the best settings for CD?

How would you gentleman describe the sound stage of the esoteric K-01, and K-03 players, roll a front and center, roll h and center, ect..., where is the sound stage placement?

The first thing that struck with me about the K-01 was how mammoth the soundstage was--wall to wall, front to back. It was giving my vinyl rig a real run for its money.

I fully concur with Washline as regards the mammoth soundstage. What's also satisfying is that the K-01 provides cues for an excellent sense of the acoustic space within the hall or recording studio.

Audiolabyrynth, on my system, consisting at the time of Rowland Criterion linestage, Rowland M725 monos, Vienna Die Muzik speakers, and a loom of top flight Aural Symphonics wires, I perceived K-01 staging as follows:

Slow Delay 2 with 4X upsampling: Images starting at front of speakers with excellent layering and depth.

FIR 1 and 2: barely behind front grill of speakers, but perceivably shallower than Sdly2.

DSD: Somewhat front of speakers with superior 3D development.... Even deeper than Slow Delay 2.

G.

I am going against the grain here. But I let my music tell me when the setting sound the best. For a year I used org setting with S_DLY1. I liked it a lot. 2x and 4x's were a change but a change that lost the feel and the details, kind of like a skim on the images, sound stage was bigger and more forward though, impressive but to me not right.

About a week ago while cleaning my system and reading about up sampling filters and converting 2X and 4X. I read where if the filter was well made try to listen with no digital filter and up sampling. We all read where that would not sound correct, more noise and so forth. Well to my surprise my Esoteric with DF off, and org. Sounded great, more inter detail, better mid range, and highs, more real to keep this simple. I like it run this way for a few weeks, then I sat down and listened and did my usual settings, while not bad, everyone of the bloated the image, sharpened the highs, and well sounded less enjoyable. FIR setting was 2nd best. I then started to read not from reviewers but real folks who under stand digital and how filters work and the myths about digital step ladders and so forth. But with digital coming such a long way from the beginning, recordings that were with care sound best natural with out the extra processing. These setting I've never tried, nor wanted to due to reading what reviewers stated and really none would say give these setting a try, I called Esoteric once and the tech said yes give these a try which I did not due to being brain washed from reading. In fact he said DF off try 4X sampling or DSD mode. I like the natural setting and let the quality of the recording come through, I still cannot believe this, and I've tried several times to go back to using the filters but I cannot. I mean the bottom end is tighter, more powerful, midrange more color and tone, highs more clear. Again, I am surprised but really lucking into trying this which I never did nor would ever consider. I then ready where PS audio said just about the same in keeping things natural thus Is2 which streamed with no conversion. I do miss a little on image size without the S_DLY1, but then I don't think this is correct any longer, different yes, but not normal. I listened to a recording on my turntable and then the same disc with my current setting and I have to say both sounded real good, and the imaging was about the same. Dynamics and tone was better with the digital, the depth and color a touch better in LP. But neither was it night and day, both had their good points. I've been in this hobby a long time and I am still learning, but staying open minded, and like all things in audio you have to try for yourself and find your own truth.