6 replies to this topic

[PhilippeC]

http://www.tapeheads...ead.php?t=16445

Really good post on tapeheads.net

[Hudson]

That is an excellent review of decks that only the lucky of us will be able to own, i would love the 50ES.... To match my ES amp !

[bluecrab]

Good review. I thought this was the most telling part:
"In comparison my other JB930 which gets great reviews for sound, seems only average compared to the ES decks."

Hmmm....I have two decks that are close enough to equivalent that I could try that same test. I'd have to swap out my JA333ES for my JB940 to see if I would hear a difference, but I'm guessing that I would. I have no plans to do this unless the 333ES dies, though.
BTW, the lack of mono on the 50ES would be a deal-killer for me. How did Sony come up with that one?

[PhilippeC]

Sadly I did not take time to listen to my JA555ES as I sold it directly to phamcu when I came back in Vietnam. But I can come to listen to his complete ES deck collection anytime. As I need a good CD player to replace my Cyrus daD3, I financed my new Marantz CD5004 (US$ 304) by selling my JA555ES. I have already a JB980, a MDS-B5, 2 bookshelves, some portable units. Not a real big collection but big enough for me.

[ZosoIV]

I've always found it curious that the 50ES is rated higher (at least subjectively) by users than the 555 which has a Type-R chip. On my equipment, ATRAC 4.5 was always noticeably worse in terms of high-frequency artifacts on certain recordings than is Type-R, and the latter seems to have a much "airier," crisper treble presentation, better transient decay, and a quieter background in general.

[paperclip]

^{I'll go out on a limb and bet you can't tell any difference between the 555 and the 940 using digital output. Really, the audio hobby is chock full of snake oil.}

[sfbp]

Even the lowly CMT-PX3 (DHC-MD595) has the CXD-2662R (and so do quite a few others including the MDS-PC3) chip. I find that (Type-R) compression with these decks is mostly flawless, and I am not even sure that Type-S beats that.

Most of the expense of the decks of that period goes into terrific D->A circuitry. As you say, optical out removes that responsibility entirely from the deck and places it squarely on the shoulders of the amplifier/receiver, which is where it should be anyway. Of course the models I cite cannot do 24-bit optical, whereas the ones you mention (940, 555, 333) all have the choice to do 16 and 24-bit. I look forward to the day when I can make a real comparison with 24-bit optical I/O.