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

If we are comparing Esoteric DV50 with much more expensive units, some may as well post a comparison of DV50 with the Esoteric X-01 single box unit. I heard this box (redbook and SACD only) next to Burmester 001 and Bel Canto PL1-A, and X-01 was incredibly better than the other two. I have not had the opportunity to compare X-01 with DV50, though.

My findings on Esoteric X-01 are posted at:
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?ddgtl&1090867688&read&keyw&zzesoteric

First of all, thanks for all the responses that I got. I really appreciate the candor, comparative analysis and information from all who responded. Now, here are my final thoughts (somewhat long winded but I believe necessary) and I invite all who responded before (as well as any newcomers to this thread) to chip in and ad their rebuttals:

ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST!

Last night (8 hours) I did an extensive AB comparison between the DV 50 and the Electrocompaniet EMC SE 1 UP (has the full monty of upgrades available)and again the DV 50 wins. The attributes of the Electro are it sounds more analog, has a slightly wider sound stage, has deeper bass and seemed to have a more quieter background (at least initially) than the DV 50. I was quite impressed with my inital listening sessions (and I'm still impressed) with this awesome player.

However, after prolonged listening sessions and comparisions I began to really pinpoint the reasons for those differences. First of all, the DV 50 is extremely transparent...not only to the music but to other componenets in the chain. This is an important distinction to make as they are not the same thing. (More on that in another forum)! But the DV 50 is ever so slightly warm.. the Electro is very warm. One of the "perceived" benefits of warmth is most audiophiles associate it with a "more analog sound". But warmth at the loss of transparency is not a benefit to me and that was definitely the case here.There is a thin layer of "haze" on the Electro that doesn't allow the music to cut through as well as the DV 50. This haze is a lack of absolute transparency.

I've also noticed that many so called "analog sounding players" achieve that affect by pushing the soundstage behind the plane of the speakers which gives a more laid back presentation and the perception of more soundstage depth. In truth, what this does is reduce some of the detail that would normally be in the listeners face and "opens up the soundstage" by the old adage "less is more". The perception is the noise floor and background is quieter...but it only sounds quieter because notes, dynamics, details that would normally be upfront are being heard to a lesser degree. In reality musical detail that was recorded on the disk is being minimized by the player's perspective. Notes and harmonics between notes don't cut through the soundstage as cleanly on the Electro. The DV 50 is also morre truthful in timbre accuracy. I noticed for example the brush used on the ride symbols in jazz music is more distinct and separated than on the Electro. The brush sounds different (as it should) on different cymbals with the DV 50 whereas with the Electro its all homogenized into one sound.

Another drawback is that you lose the sense of immediacy and urgency that can come across with artists who are known for that. Ray Charles and Rod Stewart are two artists who come to mind that consistently sing music that beneifts from a sense of immediacy (Joe Cocker on "You are so beautiful to me" ) is anotherexample. But the point I'm trying to make here is on these types of songs I want a "front row perspective" to be able to feel the raw emotion. That's what the DV 50 does. The Electro gives you a 3rd or 4th row perspective that, while maybe sounding more analog it errs on the side of reducing detail by making it less noticeable..even though the disk may have been recorded otherwise.

Forall you Electro owners, please note I never said your unit was less detailed...it in fact has plenty of detail. I only said that detail is less pronounced and shifted back in the soundstage so it doesn't draw as much atention to itself. As an audio purist I want to hear the music the way it was recoreded..not the way an audio company wants me to hear it. I've heard enough of the DV 50 now (and compared it to enough players) to know that it is a very transparent player.

The bottom line between the two players...the DV 50 is more transparent, has a tigher, more detailed bass (Electro bass goes a touch deeper),is more dynamic and is more detailed. The Electro has a wider soundstage, warmer sound, better bass depth and may be more pleasing to some audiophiles ears because it is less of its less "forward" perspective. I like the DV-50 better and so does Stereophile (Class A+ rating), Soundstage and many other reviewers.

Now, in response to those who added their comments to my original e-mail:

Reb 1208- I respect your opinion but there's no way the DV 50 is over the top in dynamis and bass. There's also no way its not transparent. Earlier I made a point about the DV 50 also being transparent to the rest of the components in your system and it sounds like you may have other links in your chain that may exacerbate or react aggressively with the DV 50. Also, there is nothing "sub-par" about the redbook performance of this player. Its a great cd player.

Drhst20 & Springbok- Thanks for your feedback. You both have had the benefit of listening to other cd players that costs multiples of what the DV 50 costs. That's where I'm headed as I beleive the only way to really know how good a component is to to judge it against the very, very best and then see whatconcessions/trade-offs have been made in regards to price vs. performance. I hope to get my hand on some $10,000 plus cd players in the near future.

Sinsosin- I agree with you that there are a number of different players that may outperform the DV 50 in one or two areas but overall the 50 is still superior. I haven't even begun to experiment with power cords or isolation/vibration control units.

711 Smilin- There's a saying in in the computer world "garbage in garbage out". Denon is known to use very cheap parts in their players and the 2900 (or 2910) is no exception. These are decidely mid-fi players and its hard for me to believe that they can be modded to come anywhere near the performance of the DV 50.

Even if you change the dac, op amps, capacitors, resistors, power supply, etc there's still the issue of cheap PCB boards, poor circuit paths and most importantly a cheap transport to begin with. I know mods are all the rage right now but it reminds me of friends of mine in high school who would go to the gym and workout but instead of taking a shower afterwards they would dry the sweat off and put on cologne to hide the stink. You can only hide it for so long! The denon's are cheaply built to begin with. And I was struck by the fact that in cd playback the 2200 sounded better than the 2900. I ab'ed both of them extensively about a year ago. The 2200 is a $600 retail player and it sounded better (in cd playback) than a $1,000 player.

I live in the Chicago area and it seems so do you. I'd love to bring my DV 50 to your place (or vice versa) for a face off. Are you upt to it?

By the way, all of my listening tests on the DV 50 were done with the filter in the middle (FIR) position. Not only do I find this setting to sound more natural, it does the least upsampling which tends to keep the bass tighter and not over exaggerate certain frequencies. Vocals sound more focused and natural. I've noticed with some upsampling players that decay and attack of notes can sound exaggerated and the same holds true for treble detail (like symbols, bells, etc). This is less so on the DV 50 but can still be heard depending upon the music.

Again, thank you everyone and please add your comments. Let's keep this thread going!

AVGURU

Avguru - seems that you'd already decided your player is the "best." So why was it that you wanted others' opinions again?

Just curious.