E.Sound CD-E3 CD Player Review

[Audioholics]

<P><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2><A href="http://www.audioholics.com/productreviews/avhardware/ESoundCD-E3CDPlayer.php"><IMG style="WIDTH: 125px; HEIGHT: 70px" alt=[ESoundCDE3] hspace=10 src="http://www.audioholics.com/news/thumbs/ESoundCDE3_th.jpg" align=left border=0></A>Audioholics would like to welcome Arvind Kohli to our writing staff. Arvind will be specializing in two-channel product reviews for us and starts off with a review of the </FONT><A href="http://www.audioholics.com/productreviews/avhardware/ESoundCD-E3CDPlayer.php"><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>E.Sound CD-E3 CD player</FONT></A><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>. This is a well-designed and excellent sounding player whose performance belies its pricing. Featuring balanced XLR outputs and a high-end look and feel, this Chinese-made&nbsp;player looks to be a great product for die-hard two-channel fans. Read the review for the full story.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>[</FONT><A href="http://www.audioholics.com/productreviews/avhardware/ESoundCD-E3CDPlayer.php"><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>Read the Review</FONT></A><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; [Arvind Staff Bio]</FONT></P>

 

[perato]

How would Audioholics compare the E.Sound CD player to the Rotel RCD-1072 CD player reviewed in May 2004? Both seem to have the same MSRP.

 

[Rob Babcock]

I wish there were a little better pictures of the front face. The ones included are fairly small/low rez. It looks nice, though, from what I can see.

 

[gene]

How would Audioholics compare the E.Sound CD player to the Rotel RCD-1072 CD player reviewed in May 2004? Both seem to have the same MSRP.

Perato, its impossible to make this comparision since these reviews were conducted by two different reviewers on different reference systems and acoustical environments. Also, we no longer have the Rotel gear on hand to do the comparision

 

[hopjohn]

<FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>. This is a well-designed and excellent sounding player whose performance belies its pricing.</FONT></P>

I'm really beginning to think I'm in the wrong forum when $700 dollars for a CD player is considered "ridiculously low priced for it's performance".

Other fun ways to blow $700 bucks.
X-Box & HD pack $200
Pioneer 578A or 563A combi player $160
5.25" Sony DVD/-+R/-+RW/ burner $180
JVC XLV-241 CD player - $25 bucks on ebay

And guess what? they all play...thats right! CDs

or

A barebone AMD 64 3000+ computer w/ 200Gb HD. $700

or

38 DVDs to add to your collection $700

or

Great seats to an Indiana Pacers game for a family of four $700

 

[Rob Babcock]

Sure Hopjohn, $700 will cover Pacers tickets, but does that include the cost of being bailed out of jail or the necessary emergency room visit?

 

[Arvind Kohli]

Perato,
I am sorry, but I did not have a chance to compare those units. But it will be comared to some upcoming review units as well, including a modded Denon 3910.

 

[Arvind Kohli]

Request noted. I have been considering taking pictures in daylight, so as to reduce the noise evidient when this pic is enlarged. I hope that will upgrade the quality level.

 

[Arvind Kohli]

I'm really beginning to think I'm in the wrong forum when $700 dollars for a CD player is considered "ridiculously low priced for it's performance".

Other fun ways to blow $700 bucks.
X-Box & HD pack $200
Pioneer 578A or 563A combi player $160
5.25" Sony DVD/-+R/-+RW/ burner $180
JVC XLV-241 CD player - $25 bucks on ebay

And guess what? they all play...thats right! CDs

or

A barebone AMD 64 3000+ computer w/ 200Gb HD. $700

or

38 DVDs to add to your collection $700

or

Great seats to an Indiana Pacers game for a family of four $700

Hopjohn,
I understand your point, and ask you to relook at the perspective of this review. Standalone CD players in today's market are niche products, that intend to "do only one thing but do it well". They usually incorporate exotic parts and design(read expensive), and claim to extract every last bit of detail and resolution the CD format has to offer.

The only benefit to buying such a player is if the rest of the system is of high enough resolution to carry through improvements in sound, if any. And if the consumer listens to music in a dedicated mode, i.e. doing nothing but sitting and listening to music.

In that context this player was compared to a $1500 CD only player, $1000 DVD-A player and a $3500 universal. It performed better or same than these models in most aspects, therefore it indeed is "low priced for it's performance".

 

[miklorsmith]

I would consider a $700 player to be too cheap to be worthy of gracing my system. We're all in different price brackets based on our levels of insanity/commitment and budget.

$20k CD-only players are being heralded as equal or better than high-resolution DVD-A and SACD players, even expensive ones, albeit only for 2-channel playback. The techlology driving these players will unquestionably trickle down to less-expensive machines. As redbook playback is reinvented, high performance, lower-cost machines will become less "niche" and more mainstream.

The engineers are hard at work and we all benefit in the end.

 

[Rip Van Woofer]

Sorry to have to say this (OK, I don't have to but I will anyway), but a review of a purely electronic signal source that relies on listening evaluations without use of and reference to measurements is of questionable value, and what I expect from the likes of Stereophile.

There are established metrics for evaluating CDPs, both the old familiar analog metrics like harmonic distortion, and digital metrics like quantization noise that can function as indicators of quality (and if bad enough, can be audible too). What is the S/NR? How good is the error correction? Is the dynamic range at or near the theoretical maximum available?

And I agree: calling a $700 CDP "ridiculously inexpensive" in an age when a sub-$200 "universal" player can give audibly close (likely identical) performance is pretty dubious. Especially one with a hard to use remote and poor usability - the things that really do make a difference to the end user when near-flawless electrical and audible performance are practically commodities.

Like I've said before: nothing says a moderator can't express strong opinions.

FOLLOWUP: On reflection, the above may have come off harsher than I intended. I don't want to seem to be giving our new reviewer, Mr. Kohli, a hard time with his first contribution. And I know my "measurements are everything" orientation is one on which reasonable people can agree to disagree. I'd just like to see measurements along with the listening impressions. If a given reviewer can't do the measurements, perhaps Gene or Hawke or another technically inclined staff member can provide them - much as David Ranada does in a sidebar for the reviews in Sound & Vision. That would be much more in line with Audioholics' stated mission, IMO.

 

[miklorsmith]

I'll be buying a sub-$200 universal player soon as my first DVD player. I am quite interested to hear how it does against my much-more-expensive CDP. I hope it's very close to identical. I'd love to sell the expensive one for some $$ and free up some space on my rack.

 

[Rip Van Woofer]

I'll be buying a sub-$200 universal player soon as my first DVD player. I am quite interested to hear how it does against my much-more-expensive CDP. I hope it's very close to identical. I'd love to sell the expensive one for some $$ and free up some space on my rack.

I did just that when I got my second-hand Pioneer DV-563A and sold my aging but still hoity-toity Arcam Alpha 8 CDP, which likewise freed up space and helped defray the price of an up-to-date receiver (Harmon Kardan DPR-1001).

No regrets!

 

[Arvind Kohli]

Sorry to have to say this (OK, I don't have to but I will anyway), but a review of a purely electronic signal source that relies on listening evaluations without use of and reference to measurements is of questionable value, and what I expect from the likes of Stereophile.

There are established metrics for evaluating CDPs, both the old familiar analog metrics like harmonic distortion, and digital metrics like quantization noise that can function as indicators of quality (and if bad enough, can be audible too). What is the S/NR? How good is the error correction? Is the dynamic range at or near the theoretical maximum available?

And I agree: calling a $700 CDP "ridiculously inexpensive" in an age when a sub-$200 "universal" player can give audibly close (likely identical) performance is pretty dubious. Especially one with a hard to use remote and poor usability - the things that really do make a difference to the end user when near-flawless electrical and audible performance are practically commodities.

Like I've said before: nothing says a moderator can't express strong opinions.

FOLLOWUP: On reflection, the above may have come off harsher than I intended. I don't want to seem to be giving our new reviewer, Mr. Kohli, a hard time with his first contribution. And I know my "measurements are everything" orientation is one on which reasonable people can agree to disagree. I'd just like to see measurements along with the listening impressions. If a given reviewer can't do the measurements, perhaps Gene or Hawke or another technically inclined staff member can provide them - much as David Ranada does in a sidebar for the reviews in Sound & Vision. That would be much more in line with Audioholics' stated mission, IMO.

Rip,
Gene perhaps will comment on plans for including measurements as part of our reviews. I agree that it is an essential part of a review, and yes Stereophile does a good job of them.

Also consider, that just because something measures different it may not sound different. Alas, the science to bridge psychoacoustics and our hobby is virtually unbuilt. And it will take a long time and a lot of work (maybe not in our lifetimes) to learn what are all the dimensions of human hearing and how to measure equipment in correlation to those dimensions. For now, measurements are a noble and almost random start in that direction.

But in the end, the only thing that mattters is whether of not there is an audible difference on various parameters. For readers seeking that information, I hope I have provided enough to chew on.

I still stand behind considering the E.Sound a low-priced unit, considering the niche the product is aimed at: the highest fidelity reproduction of the redbook format.

 

[Arvind Kohli]

I'll be buying a sub-$200 universal player soon as my first DVD player. I am quite interested to hear how it does against my much-more-expensive CDP. I hope it's very close to identical. I'd love to sell the expensive one for some $$ and free up some space on my rack.

I think you finding will very much depend on 2 factors.

- the resolution of the rest of your gear. The higher resolution your system, the more likely and the greater the differences you will hear; if there are any.

- your mode of listening. If you are engaged in other activity(reading, cooking, browsing, etc) it is unlikely you will hear any difference. What differences there are in disc players today, are too small to be heard outside of a dedicated listening session with fairly high resolution gear.

Depending on the age of you CDP, do not be surprised if your DVD player sounds better. The fidelity of disc players has vastly improved over the years, and has trickled down the price chain.

 

[hopjohn]

I still stand behind considering the E.Sound a low-priced unit, considering the niche the product is aimed at: the highest fidelity reproduction of the redbook format.

I was well aware you were comparing it to products of the same ilk. I guess my underlying point is that if you are going to review a niche product, that you might also understand that you are writing for a niche market, and an elitist one at that.

The fact that a $700 cd player could be viewed as a value product under any circumstances should be cause for concern in our hobby. Maybe those who surround themselves with elitist products so frequently become desensitised to what true value really is. Why propagate what many consider a dark side to our hobby by reviewing such a product?

I invite you to listen to the latest crop of DVD combi players at or around 700 dollars and see if you can tell one from an ESound unit in a blind test. The added versatility of such a player will provide you with not only like cd performance, but added technologies that have proven to be superior to the aging CD format.

 

[Rob Babcock]

While I liked the review, and don't wish to unnecessarily concern Mr. Kohli, reviews of an almost purely subjective nature aren't likely to be well received here. At least, not among the hardcore forum users. The AH credo of letting facts and measures do the talking causes more objectivist types to gravitate to these forums, and they don't put a lot of stock in purple prose.

I do read a lot of subjective reviews, but one question asked here really does merit consideration: does Mr. Kohli assert that he really could discern that player from an entry level DVD player thru listening alone (ie blind)? That's the main knock on rags like Stereophile- they perform comprehensive measurements, which we all like, but then procede to simply ignore them in favor of purple prose and flowery language, waxing rhapsodic about the trinket de jour being reviewed. I've often read with amusement, wondering if there's the faintest chance that any of the wonderous powers they attribute to the review peice could possibly exist or if the whole thing is reviewers delusion. I'd dearly love to put the latest Musical Fidelity product in the lineup with its nearest generic equivalent and have those Golden Ears pick 'em out of the lineup blind.

 

[WorkerBee]

Arvind,
Welcome to Audioholics...I wish you well in regards to your to job/hobby.
The road may seem a little bumpy at first but it will smooth out and be quite pleasant in the end. By the way....that cd player looks very nice.