PhilippeC Posted January 20, 2012 Report Share Posted January 20, 2012 http://www.tapeheads.net/showthread.php?t=16445 Really good post on tapeheads.net Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hudson Posted January 20, 2012 Report Share Posted January 20, 2012 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 ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluecrab Posted January 20, 2012 Report Share Posted January 20, 2012 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilippeC Posted January 21, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 21, 2012 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZosoIV Posted March 10, 2012 Report Share Posted March 10, 2012 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paperclip Posted March 17, 2012 Report Share Posted March 17, 2012 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfbp Posted March 17, 2012 Report Share Posted March 17, 2012 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.