2. digital
  3. 1262881641

Sony SCD-XA5400ES-Best SACD for under $10,000

This Sony player supplanted my Ayre C5-XE 3, which I still have, months ago. I paid $6000 for the Ayre after determining that it was the best-sounding unit for under $10,000. The Sony blows it away!!!
A unit costing $1500 besting all others under $10,000? That is exactly what it does!
For reference, I am using Audio Research electronics and Vandersteen speakers and subwoofers (about $30,000); a similar system has repeatedly been lauded as "best of show" at CES, so we are NOT talking second-rate stuff here.
This Sony is the only SACD/Cd player I have EVER heard that puts a classical piano live in my living room; nothing I ever had before even comes close.
This unit is a small miracle. I would have gladly paid $8000 for it, but if they want to give the thing away for $1500, who am I to argue?
This unit is going to send the engineers at Audio Research, Luxman, Esoteric, and Ayre back to the drawing board; their current units at 4 to 5 times the price are not even close. Some engineer at Sony is a freaking genius!!!
wa6itd
jwm
918 posts
 
Well I now have 350 hours on the Playback Designs player and the sound is much better. I still prefer the Modright Sony for it is more organic sounding. The Playback is leaning towards the dryer sound. We will see if 500 hours changes things.
dave_b's avatar
dave_b
3,159 posts
 
I have an NAD C565BEE which sounds far more engaging than the Playback Designs....it's for the listener who want's to hear digits instead of music.
rgs92
974 posts
 
I have the Sony and an EMM CDSA with the X upgrade, and although the Sony is competitive (which says a lot), the EMM does a lot better job of curing some of the digital evils, like the annoying glare of some lesser-quality CDs and even SACDs in the midrange (especially some vocals).
This makes the difference in many older CDs with music I love between being painful/unlistenable and being, well, just fine.

My intuition is that the EMM is playing skillfully with the digital processing in some kind of miraculous way, not just playing with frequency response or equalization.

The Sony and other players I have owned just don't seem to do this like EMM. Every CD I have tried with this EMM is free of fatal flaws, and some previously bad ones are now spectacular.

Having said that, on not-so-bad or even mediocre recordings, the Sony really does a great job of eliminating hardness, especially in the boundaries of images, which are silky and detailed, a very nice combination, and image saturation is great. Piano is very well handled in the Sony with impact and no annoying digital bite. And percussion is also great, also with impact and detail but again without hardness.

If the CD does not have an inherent "shout factor", which I feel is the one of the main problems of a number of CDs,
the Sony acquits itself very nicely. Instruments sound life size and just swing without piercing pain, and I get lost in the music. I think the images are even a bit bigger than the EMM, and I like that. And again, the overall signature is silkiness with evident but not overbearing impact.

Thanks for reading.
rgs92
974 posts
 
Just to ask the Playback Design fans, how do you feel it deals with digital glare, especially on poorly recorded CDs with vocals that are recorded or equalized to scream at you?
(OK, I know this is an acid test, but I am curious.)
Thanks in advance.
jylee
306 posts
 
I haven't heard anyone talking about specific flaws about XA5400ES, other than general "I like another player better than Sony". The only complaint seems to be coming from mrtennis who don't own Sony and never even heard of it, yet seems to be full of opinions about this player.
More to discover