That would do justice to the clx.Good decision. Now she can’t scold you if you upgrade to the Grandioso
That would do justice to the clx.Good decision. Now she can’t scold you if you upgrade to the Grandioso
Ah ha! That's the one TDX, the justification is always plausible...Good decision. Now she can’t scold you if you upgrade to the Grandioso
I have Esoteric K-03XS, I prefer listen it with my old DAC Mark Levinson N360S...I have connect too a Grimm CC1 ( clock).I auditioned a Luxman D-08u a year of two ago and liked it better than my Esoteric K-03X, but it was clear that this model would soon be replaced, so I decided to wait. I'll bet your D-10X is a killer player. Have seen YouTube demo/comparisons of both this machine and the Esoteric K-03XD. Both very good but distinctly different sound.
Have you heard the top esoteric gear in your system for comparison purposes? Congrats on the new CDP.I think this flagship luxman equals or beats the flagship esoteric at a fraction of the price.
Thank you.no I haven’t.Have you heard the top esoteric gear in your system for comparison purposes? Congrats on the new CDP.
Great stuff.enjoy them bigdog.Greetings & G'day maties,
I just took delivery of three SACD's, one a multi layer, multi channel SACD from Venus, and the other two SACDs from Impex. Quite different in sound reproduction and output, which I will address in point form. The K07-XS has no issues playing various formats with multi-layers, though quite different payback levels.
1. The Venus sacd of Bill Charlap is loud! Powerful from level settings only set at 20 on the CT5.
2. The Impex ones by Patricia Barber are too soft at 20, so I would have to increase levels to around 40 to get that perfect realism. Each step on the level settings are 0.7dB, that's quite a significant margin...
3. There's another CD that I have by Venus label, called Gentle Blues- Tsuyoshi Yamamoto Trio, again very high levels on playback. Noticed both Venus are made in Japan.
The question is, why such variations in playback levels, especially SACD's? I thought SACD/ DSD formats were set on high standards and had to meet specific requirements in order to achieve SACD status. I was under the impression that was the standard and that there shouldn't be any variations as compared to standard CD quality.
Maybe I've missed something here, anyone else experienced such variations in SACD playback?
Would be interesting to learn how you found it, and how it affected level settings.
At the end of the day, whichever levels I finally managed to focus on, just with the right scale and image, like a camera lense, everything fits in perfectly. I must say the playback experience was superb! Cheers to Patricia Barber and Bill Charlap, very nicely done.
Best, RJ
Totally agree.Has nothing to do with the format, it is how they were produced and mastered. Possible use of lots of compressions which would raise the loudness perceived. Non-compression recordings and others might be mastered at a lowered level say like a Telarc recording, then you next recording you know most likely volume better be turned down or you might blow yourself or your speakers out of the room. M&K recordings, Sheffield Labs also would be at a lower level, they say that is very dynamic range and low noise so you turn up the volume on your preamp quite a bit. In fact, the Sheffield Lab recordings of Harry James were all released just a few years ago, taken directly for the master discs, and the level is so low, that we really need to crank it, that is until the horns section and Harry James starts to blow then lookout, you will be running for the volume, definitely no compression there.
The Harry James Sessions 1976 & 1979 (sheffieldlab.com)