any plans to review the Esoteric D-07

Hi rydenfan - It's certainly been on my radar for a bit. I'll make an effort to get one in here.

Thanks Chris! at $4,800 with multiple inputs including USB it would certainly be interesting to see how it stacks up. I heard that same 32 bit DAC used in the D-07 in a cd player of theirs and it had a really nice sound. Being that it is Esoteric the fit and finish will be world class so I would be really interested in what you think of it sonically. I appreciate you making the effort.

rydenfan,

In my auditions, the D-07 sounded much better than the SA-50 via USB input, to be honest, I didn't really care for the SA-50. Don't know for sure, but I think the D-07 has a better USB interface. While good on its own, the G-03X external clock lifted the sound higher. The external clock made a bigger difference to USB input to D-07 than to P-05 transport to D-07.

-- Daniel

I hope to have a chance to have both DACs available this weekend to do a little comparison though as you can see in another post, I don't have an option to interface the Berkeley with a PC at this point. I'll be trying both with an older Lexicon transport this week and I'll post my thoughts about the two next week.

I'd love to see a comparison of the SA-50 to the D-07, mostly because I was thinking of buying the SA-50 as my last CD/SACD player, and also using it as a DAC for a Mac Mini.

I listened to both a couple of days ago. To be honest I was underwhelmed by the SA-50. It sounded really nice on SACD but not as good on CD. It sounded much better as a transport feeding the D-07 so my impression is the D-07 is the better DAC. The SA-50 only supports 16/44 on USB as well so I don't know if that influences your decision. It seems like a very expensive SACD player and transport solution though.

Thanks for the advice.

The best sound I've ever heard was the Esoteric P-03/D-03/G-03 combo, and I keep hoping I can get close to that in one box. But I agree, it would be stupid to swap the SA-50 for my venerable Sony XA777ES unless it's a clear step up for both CD and SACD formats. As far as USB, I'd probably use something like the Bel Canto USB Link to the S/PDIF input. The positive reviews at SoundStage! and 6moons make me want to audition it myself, but there are no Esoteric dealers in Vermont.

I'll probably go the simple and cheap route of using a Mac Mini with an iPad to a DAC, just keep my Sony around for the SACDs.

Hey Chris, any plans to add the Mini to the C.A.S.H. list? Or for a DIY article on how to get the most out of one, e.g. best software settings, best hardware configuration?

Guys, the SA-50 and D-07 are very different units. The SA-50 is a cd player that contains a USB input. The D-07 is a dedicated DAC that Esoteric spent a lot of time developing. The D-07 carries basically the same price as the SA-50 yet does not contain any of the hardware associated with the transport. I would personally be far more interested in how the D-07 compares to dedicated DACs like the Ayre, Weiss, Berkely, etc. than how it compares to an Esoteric CD player.

The SA-50 is their one-box solution that plays CD/SACD and has USB and S/PDIF inputs. I would imagine Esoteric spent a lot of time developing both machines.

Given that the SA-50 is the newer product and seems to use the exact same 32 bit chip and technology as the D-07, but adds the VSOP transport, I personally would be more interested in hearing what Chris thinks of the SA-50. If Chris reviews the SA-50 and likes the DAC performance, I bet the D-07 would sound at least as good if not better. Maybe almost as good as the D-03, which is stellar.

In any case, I'm hoping Chris likes the SA-50 as much as other reviewers have, but if he chooses to review the D-07, that's fine too. Either way, he's just doing our work for us.

Chris,
I'm auditioning the Berkley and Esoteric this weekend. Have you had a chance to compare the two devices? If so, I'd welcome you input and that of anyone else's that has familiarity. Thanks in advance.

Hello,
I am very curious how this holds up with my X-03 se.
Both because of different dac inside, newer technology and usb input.

Paul

I recently had both the Berkeley and the SA-50 here at home and had plenty of time to compare them in my system. The Berkeley had been in my system about a year at the time of the comparision.

The rest of the digital side was an Esoteric X-03, Weiss AFI1 firewire to SP/DIF converter, Mac Powerbook (since replaced by a new Mac Mini) running iTunes. Digital files are stored on a Thecus N5200 Pro NAS. I did not use either USB or optical during the trials.

Bottom line: I found the SA-50 to be more to my liking than the X-03 when playing CDs or SACDs, the X-03 VRDS transport not withstanding.

The X-03 converts SACD DSD to PCM before analog conversion, the SA-50 can be set to DSD, PCM, DSD > PCM, or PCM > DSD.

The X-03 has fixed upsampling of PCM, the SA-50 can select no upsampling, 2X or 4X.

The X-03 has a fixed output filter; the SA-50 allows selection of a FIR filter or the more traditional post conversion filter.

To summarize the sonic impressions of the two players -- the X-03 sounded a bit bolder, but also a bit edgier, and could get tiresome on less than excellent disks. The SA-50 sounded more natural, more like the sound of actual acoustic instruments, and the flexibility of decoding, sampling and filtering options allowed me to find combinations that favored both superbly engineered and recorded disks, and those that aren't so fortunate. I found that it did not give away anything in terms of dynamics, extension, or detail to the X-03.

SA-50 vs. Berkeley was a lot closer. I played redbook and high-resolution digital from Reference Recordings, 2L, HDTT, and MA Recordings. I found that I had to very carefully match levels between the two (I used a Tektronics o-scope) otherwise the precedence effect of the louder output skewed the results to favor the louder of the two -- they were that close.

After a lot of critical listening over a week, I gave a slight -- very slight -- nod to the Berkeley, but it was extremely close.

So close in fact, that I've since sold the Berkeley and the X-03 and have been using the SA-50 exclusively for a couple of months. No regrets -- yes, I'd like to have a cost-no-object system, but I found the SA-50 to be a very cost-effective digital solution at less than half the price of the X-03/Berkeley combination.

I value clarity, neutrality, and transparency to the source in my equipment selections, rather than euphony or an overly-pleasant forgiveness. I think at these price points, any of the equipment is quite good and truly egregious behavior is pretty rare. So to some extent, personal preference plays as important a factor in selection as objective specification and performance.

I hope this is a useful datapoint.

Steve Z