'Bass resolution test' (Chesky Records; Chesky Jazz and Audiophile tests Vol2; Chesky; JD68)

The E.Sound had noticeably more heft in the lower bass. There also was a tad more detail in the background noises that can be heard on the last 3 seconds of the track, after the instrument has stopped playing.

Overall, I have no complaints with the sound. It certainly was not lacking in anything in comparison to the Creek, which I felt was better than the 2 players before it.

The next set of comparisons was to the Lexicon RT-10 ($3,500).

'Yesterdays' (Dave Bruebeck; Nightshift; Telarc; CD83351)

Comparing CD playback on the E.Sound to the Lexicon, proved to be quite a challenge. The magnitude of the difference between the performances of these players is very small indeed, and I had to switch between playing small segments of the track between both players many times before I could reliably discern a difference. I would have to call this splitting hairs. It is times like this when I wish I had the wherewithal to conduct blind listening tests, to make sure my conclusions are not based on some bias in my own mind.

Nonetheless, here is what I found. The E.Sound gave the piano keys a smidgen more richness and the individual notes were better separated in time and space. Where the E.Sound significantly lead the Lexicon was in detail. This sonically and aesthetically outstanding album was recorded live at the Blue Note club in New York city, and there is a lot of ambient information during the relatively quiet parts of this track. This low-level ambient noise was so realistically reproduced by the E.Sound, that several times I was fooled into thinking that something was a stir in my house. There is an irony here, which only audiophiles would appreciate, about the player being so 'involving' that it resulted in being distracting. While I heard a lot of that detail with the Lexicon, it was not a s convincing as with the E.Sound. I would attribute this to what seemed like a lower noise floor in the E.Sound, which by contrast makes the detail and imaging stand out better.

'Rimshot' (Eryka Badu; Baduism; Universal; UD53027) and 'All or nothing at all' (Diana Krall; Love Scenes; Impulse; IMPD233 )

Again, the two players were very close in performance and I could not reliable pick out any differences on these tracks. There is another lesson here. Subjectively, I would say that the 'Nightshift' album is of higher resolution than these two recordings which perhaps explains why I was able to find minute differences listening to it and not when using tracks from 'Baduism' or 'Love scenes'. An important conclusion for readers is that unless you are listening to recordings of a very high resolution, you may be impervious to some of the differences between players. This also should further illustrate how small indeed the differences between disc players can be.

'Bass resolution test' (Chesky Records; Chesky Jazz and Audiophile tests Vol2; Chesky; JD68)

The Lexicon and the E.Sound proved to be equals in terms of bass depth and quality. The resonance of the plucked strings lingered on just a bit longer and distinctly with the E.Sound. Again, I would attribute this as better detail due to a quieter noise floor.

The final set of comparisons were done against the Adcom GDV-850 ($1,000), which also offers DVD and DVD-A capabilities..

'Coming of the Mandinka ' (V.M. Bhatt, Taj Mahal; Mumtaz Mahal; Waterlily Acoustics; WLA-CS-46-SACD)

Differences were difficult to pick out on this track, but were there. The E.Sound had slightly better dynamics, especially noticeable in the 'woah's and 'hey's that Taj Mahal shouts out. I might not have noticed a shortcoming with the Adcom by itself, but when directly compared to the E.Sound the difference was evident. The vocal peaks seemed higher and more natural on the E.Sound, only in comparison did the Adcom seem like it was compressing the peaks a bit.

'Yesterdays' (Dave Bruebeck; Nightshift; Telarc;CD83351)

The E.Sound had a lot more detail in the higher frequencies. The resonance of the piano notes seemed to last longer and were slightly better separated from each other. The Adcom made the piano sound a bit more distant and smaller in size, compared to the upfront and expansive instrument the E.Sound painted. Here person al taste probably matters more than an absolute edict.

Conclusion

Other than my belly aching about the remote, what is not to like? The cosmetics are befitting high-end and in my opinion, its fidelity is on par or a bit better than the Creek, Adcom and Lexicon units. Now when you factor in that it retails for $700USD, you realize that this is not only an excellent player it is also an excellent value.

My only concern with this player is its playback format limitations. While I would prefer one unit for all formats, I would be willing to have a CD only player if I could not find that level of CD performance in an affordable multi-format player. I would hazard a guess, that it is going to be nearly impossible to find this level of CD playback in a multi-format player at a price anywhere near $700 for the CD section. I am actually very tempted to buy this unit for myself.

If you have an extensive CD collection and are serious about two-channel listening you should consider this player, unless you have an astronomical budget. Based on the samples used for comparison in this review, I would conclude that you probably need to plunk a lot more dough than the comparative players I used above, to expect better performance.