Replacing SONY XA9000ES SACD/CD Player- Suggestions for Comparable Sound?

Not to speak for Geoff, but I have discovered that there's a lot more to managing and keeping a server based system running than a CD player. I have neurological problems that, at this point, make it difficult for me to manage simple tasks let alone a server system. It's fine if it is all running OK but when my PC started playing up that was the end of it for me. Until someone helps me set up a new PC my HDDs are gathering dust - even if it gets up and running again the router will freak out at some point and I'll be ****ed again.

Thank god for disc spinners - otherwise I wouldn't be able to listen to my hi-fi.

Now, this may be an extreme case but it highlights the difference between the two systems - server based systems are high maintenance and whether your brain is working well or not, some people prefer to have their playback set up to be of the good old fashioned, simple, reliable press and play variety.

 

The Sony is a great unit. Not to create any doubts but this summer one of the op amps blew and the unit went in for service. Truth be told it was a power surge, that caused the havoc.

 

Yeah, but have you priced audiophile DACs? I've gotta think HDMI licensing wouldn't be a huge imposition.

Besides, some fairly good-sized names who already license HDMI for their receivers - like NAD - make audiophile DACs (that have HDMI).

A bigger problem might be DSD licensing. You'd think Sony would be giving that away for free just to keep the format alive...

(Denon makes a standalone DAC that does DSD, but doesn't have HDMI. Denon clearly has licensed HDMI...)

 

No one wants to deal with the HDCP issues that arise when using an HDMI interface, especially without a display.

 

That's a valid point. I've noticed my receiver goes silent if it's connected to my computer monitor but the monitor is switched to view the computer's output...

Part of this though is just crappy implementations of HDCP and HDMI - a bunch of equipment for some unknown reason doesn't comply with the established standards. nVidia video cards are notorious for this - on my PC, the integrated Intel graphics actually do a much better job working with my receiver. Go figure...

 

Received my SONY XA5400ES.

The major benefit associated with this player, to me, is that I can now play hybrid SACDs, while the XA9000ES would not. After reconnecting the 9000 for comparison with the 5400, some issues arose with playing redbook cds also, so replacement of the 9000 was essential.

Compared the 5400 with the 9000. Big difference in the weight, the 9000 is ~35 pounds (its a beast) while the 5400 weighs in at ~23 lbs. Not necessarily an indicator of better sound...but...

There is also quite a difference between the two players in sound, on my setup. The 9000 has more air & separation between instruments & vocals, leading to greater clarity. Crisp, sharper highs & tighter bass.
Sounds better than the 5400 on my gear. The 5400 does, though, have a nice, pleasing warm sound. These comments apply equally to both the SACD & CD layers.

The sound difference was really evident on the new Steely Dan Countdown to Ecstasy SHM-SACD, for example, which blew me away when I first heard it on the 9000 but on the 5400, not so much.

So, a little disappointed in the 5400 sound wise in comparison with the 9000, but for me, a trade-off for a reliable player.

 

Hmm, that's interesting. Most people, including the esteemed Kal Rubinson from Stereophile, prefer the 5400ES. I guess different gear and ears make a difference! BTW, are you comparing via RCA, XLR, or HDMI? I found for stereo that the XLR outs sounded the best.

 

I was surprised at the SQ difference. Also surprised to hear that most people prefer the 5400 over the 9000.

Isn't the XA9000ES rated A+ by Stereophile while the 5400 is an A? Not certain of this, though.

Reconnected the 9000 just to confirm what I heard. There is no question of the SQ difference on my system, to my ears. The XA5400ES does sound very good though, just not as good as the XA9000ES.

RCA outputs. After making recent substantial investment in Cardas RCA interconnects, won't be changing to XLR outputs.

 

The 2014 issue rates it as an A+. Here's their capsule review:

Sony SCD-XA5400ES: $1499 $$$ ✩
Similar in appearance to earlier ES models, the SCD-XA5400ES uses an 8x-oversampling filter and a noise-shaping algorithm that result in a 2.8224MHz signal-sampling frequency, and offers multichannel digital output via HDMI. (Used with either the Arcam AV888 pre-pro or Kal's Meridian HD621/861, the Sony successfully output PCM and DSD via HDMI.) CD playback was "a revelation," with sound that was "detailed, spacious, and luscious," said KR. Compared to the SCD-XA9000ES, the new model sounded smoother overall without sacrificing top-to-bottom clarity or detail. "For the moment, I have yet to hear a better SACD/CD player," said Kal. Compared to the Yamaha Aventage BD-A1000, the Sony had a more dramatic and forward sound, but lacked the Yamaha's broad, deep soundstage and superior delineation of instruments and ambience, said KR. (Vol.32 Nos.5 & 11, Vol.34 No.5 WWW)

 

Based on my experience, I agree with the smoother overall sound comment but do not agree with the latter comment, as top-to-bottom clarity & detail is pretty much exactly where the 900o excelled in comparison with the 5400.

To clarify my earlier comment concerning Stereophile rating, both the XA5400ES & XA9000ES were rated A+.

 

Different equipment. When I have the opportunity to listen to music, I play a disc on a stereo system while doing other things, including work. Ripping CDs is all work and is tedious. Besides, I don't have a music server of any kind (e.g., a computer) in either stereo system simply because I have no interest in having one. So I could rip CDs on an isolated laptop or desktop computer, but then what? Am I going to connect one of them to a stereo? No. In the end, I am not going to take all the time required to rip my CDs. I don't have that kind of time. It's just not going to happen, and it isn't necessary because I have the discs.

I'm not going to go on and on with this. Like you said, I've said this before. It isn't going to change. By the same token, please stop insisting that disc players are outdated as you thought you need to convince us to give them up. Files and music servers aren't for everyone, which means that for those people, disc players aren't outdated.

 

They don't mention the 9000 in the latest issue. I didn't realize that it originally sold for twice the price of the 5400...might that have something to do with the sound quality? (Of course, I realize that cost and sound are not always synonymous.)

 

The 9000 was touted as SONY's best sounding SACD/CD player at the time, their top of the line. which I think retailed at ~$3K upon release. I am not sure of their purpose exactly with the 5400. They certainly addressed issues that existed with the laser assembly KHM-230AAA, which problems plagued the 9000 & its predecessors to some extent, as the 5400 works beautifully. SONY may have been trying to access a broader market with the 5400's price point, which I think was $1500 originally, or the lower price might have been reflective of lower demand for or limited availability of SACDs a short time back. Not sure what their intention was with the sound on the 5400. It is certainly different from its predecessor the 9000, some like it better, some don't.

Others might be able to give you more insight than I. KeithH is a pretty knowledgeable guy in this area I believe, based on input he has provided.

 

There are, also, many fewer features in the 5400, compared to the 6000, and they might contribute to a lower price.

 

I have never used the unbalanced outputs on my 5400 so I would not know what they sound like.

I have a very modified XA777ES and the 5400 replaced that. Not quite as revealing in sound quality in a close comparison, but the difference was quite minor. It was nice to get a super-reliable player and after a day I did not feel like I was missing out. I have had the 5400 in place for such a long time, but I should take the XA777ES out of the bedroom system and have another comparison.

 

I never owned the 'XA9000ES, but an obvious difference between the two is the relative build quality. The 'XA5400ES isn't junky, but it is a lightweight compared to the 'XA9000ES. I've seen the 'XA9000ES in person and appreciate its heft. Still, is that worth double the price if you had the choice of the two players new? Not to me.

A key difference also is that the 'XA9000ES has 5.1 analog outputs, while the 'XA5400ES does not. The 'XA5400ES has an HDMI ouput for surround playback, however. Also, the 'XA5400ES has balanced outputs, while the 'XA9000ES does not.

When the 'XA5400ES came out, all reviews I read stated that it beat previous Sony ES flagship SACD players, including the SCD-1, '777ES, 'XA777ES, and 'XA9000ES. Some reviews in this thread state a preference for the 'XA9000ES over the 'XA5400ES. That doesn't exactly surprise me given the difference in price and given that Sony had already been working on SACD for quite awhile when it released the 'XA9000ES. Still, the 'XA5400ES is an excellent CD and SACD player for the price. It also seems to have an edge on the 'XA9000ES in terms of reliability.

 

The Sony engineers behind the XA5400ES were consciously targeting a purer sound than their previous flagship models. It was Sony's last word on the DSD format for sound quality.

 

Almost every review of the 5400ES that I've read, including Kal's review, states or implies that "delineation of instruments" is not all that great on this player. Is there a particular reason for this lack of delineation?

I would have thought that Sony would pull all the stops to get this right especially considering the vast number of classical titles on SACD. Classical after all is the genre most likely to benefit from great "delineation of instruments."

 

I have no such issues with the 'XA5400ES, but if folks feel it is an issue compared to previous Sony players, one should remember the price difference. The 'XA5400ES was significantly cheaper than previous Sony flagship players.

 

I think they realized that the heavyweight construction techniques they previously adopted added to the price and not to the sound, and they saved money that way. They also had it made in their Malaysia factory, which would have been a saving for them, but I have no idea of any percentages.

 

Of course, some people argue that a heavy-weight chassis improves isolation and reduces interference, which in turn improves the sound. I don't believe that is a significant contributor to the sound when compared to the parts used under the hood, but some believe it is a factor. I just love the solid feel of overbuilt components, so the 'XA5400ES is a bit of letdown. It isn't feather-light, but it isn't a brick either.

 

In comparison to my XA777ES it is a bit of a letdown on that particular score. But it has made up for that with reliability.

 

For that, you need an Esoteric K-series! My K-03 weighs 61 lbs!!

 

I believe some of that comes from a 10lb steel plate at the bottom of the case.

 

Wow!

And the sound?