Hi-Rez Highway: REVIEW: Sony SCD-XA777ES CD Player/Recorder by dfong

Model:	SCD-XA777ES
Category:	CD Player/Recorder
Suggested Retail Price:	$2995
Description:	Single Disc Multi-channel SACD Player
Manufacturer URL:	Sony
Manufacturer URL:	Sony

Review by dfong ( A ) on February 20, 2003 at 13:40:28
IP Address: 171.64.54.54

Add Your Review
for the SCD-XA777ES

I've had this unit in my system for about 3-4 months now, and i now
feel i can give a fairly good assessment of its strengths and
weaknesses.
ancilliary equipment : see my inmate system page
Background:
i considered the XA-777ES's predecessor, the SCD-777ES, about 3 years
ago when i bought my Arcam Alpha 9 CD player. At the time, there were
probably only 100 SACDs available. Anyway, the short story was that i
found that the SCD-777ES fell far short of the Arcam Alpha 9 (and the
Rotel 991 for that matter) on CD playback. Given, the dearth of
SACDs, i couldn't justify the leap to hi-rez for the $2500 price tag
compared with the $1400 i paid for my Alpha 9.
Fast forward a few years and i got the itch to dive into hi-rez. This
time, however, i'm still satisfied with the Redbook playback of my
Arcam Alpha 9, and am interested in buying a player only for it's SACD
merits only (and for 2 channel as i don't have the space nor finances
to expand my hi-end system into multichannel). After pondering the
SCD-C555ES at $800, i decide to dive headfirst and pick up the
XA-777ES for $1995 from Oade Brothers (who, BTW, are highly
recommended!).

The Executive Summary
PROS:
- superb SACD playback : transparent, incredible midrange purity,
great transient recovery, tight and fast low frequencies, very smooth
and analog like sound. in short, a very easy, natural, yet detailed
sound.
- Great build quality (feels like a tank...perhaps not quite as
substantial as the first gereration 777ES and SCD-1, but still very
top notch)
- Much faster loading of SACDs than the first generation players
- CD playback improved over the 777ES (not compared directly...only
from memory)
- mostly quiet transport (see CONS)
CONS:
- in spite of having a very quiet drawer operation, the transport is
fairly loud when playing SACDS (dead silent for CDs)...this is
presumably due to the higher rate of rotation for SACDs. still, i'd
prefer it to be quieter. i can hear the disk whirling from within a
meter or so of the player. fortunately, it is not audible from the
listening position which is 9-10 feet away.
- the player does not default to SACD mode if a hybrid is inserted.
(it reverts to the last used disc's mode, which would be CD, for
example, for a Redbook disc).

Some Details
SACD : enough has been said of its merits, so i won't comment on it
here except to say that it is magical at times with great recordings.
I didn't think Patricia Barber's Modern Cool could get much better
than it was on CD, but i was wrong. of course, there are a few dud
SACDs out there, but for the most part, i've been impressed. of
course, there are many CDs that are nearly as good. [ie, if recorded
and mastered properly, a CD can sound extremely good]
CD: Overall, a big improvement over its predecessor based on my
memories of its comparision with my Arcam unit. it's taken me several
months to finally hone in on what makes the two players
different/better/worse. in short, what i've found is that the Sony
and Arcam paint two fairly different pictures on CD. one is not
necessarily "more correct" than the other. the better of the two will
depend on both the material and listener's preference. (mine will be
expressed below)
Some basic descriptions---(again for CD)
Sony:
- soundstage placed further back behind speakers
- bass is tight, but a little shy in comparison to other CD players
- great transient recovery
- very smooth, and relaxed presentation
- slightly higher resolution of details.
Arcam (*)
- soundstage further forward than the Sony
- soundstage appears to be deeper and imaging slightly better than Sony
- more dynamic bass, although perhaps not as taut as the Sony
- better midrange purity as evidenced by vocals on performers i've heard live
- not as quick in transient recovery
some of these thoughts were clear from the very beginning. the Sony
offers a much "further back" in the venue presentation than the
Arcam...ie, front row versus 10 rows back. This at times creates a
much "larger acoustic" in my small 13x11 listening room which can be a
very nice experience. i also like the amazing transient recovery on
instruments such as a plucked guitar and harp. contrary to Kal
Rubinstein's review in Stereophile, i find the Sony to be a fairly
forgiving player. it is accurate, yes, but is a bit smooth in
comparison to other players i've heard like the Cal Audio CL-15. it
doesn't seem to miss any details, however. and subjectively, it has
better resolution than the Arcam.
the Arcam presents a more exciting bold picture in comparison--the
soundstage is from a more forward perspective, and the bass is
significantly more dynamic. whether the latter is "more accurate" is
subject to debate. i don't find the Arcam exaggerated (of course,
i've grown used to it over 3 years), but i find the Sony a tad polite
and lacking on the low end.
the Arcam also wins in terms of midrange purity/transparency when it
comes to vocals. for artists i've heard live (Dar Williams, Richard
Shindell, Cheryl Wheeler, for example), the Arcam wins in terms of
reproducing their voices whether it being the smoothness of Dar
reaching the higher octaves or Richard with this Stipean roughness in
some refrains.
the Arcam also wins hands down for the HDCD discs i have (perhaps that
is why Richard and Cheryl sound so much better on their recent CDs).
There is more detail, better transparency, and better pace with the
Arcam on such discs. i had long suspected that HDCDs were better
sounding because there was more care taken, typically, in the
production of these albums. nevertheless, having an HDCD decoder
definitely ups the ante here for the HDCD encoded discs. i wish there
were a way to turn off the decoder on the Arcam to do an actual direct
comparison.
One surprising revelation i had the last few weeks was that the Arcam
soundstages better than the Sony. i hadn't noticed this before. in
fact, the "Further back" perspective of the Sony seems to give the
illusion of almost a deeper soundstage. for the most part, i had
deduced that their stoundstage on CDs were comparable in depth and
width, both fairly good on my system. however, on recordings with
lesser soundstages, i found more dramatic differences. on some
recordings where the soundstage is rather flat on the Sony (ie,
inferior recordings), there is signicantly more depth on the
Arcam. Again, which is more accurate, is subject for debate. is the
Arcam artificially creating a deeper soundstage when it doesn't really
exist? i don't know. but for these particular recordings, the Arcam
certainly sounds more pleasing. Finally, images are a little more
precise with Arcam. not by a big margin, but certainly noticeable in
my few months of listening and comparing.
which player do i like better? it's a tough call. for CD only, i
would choose the Arcam, i think. perhaps, again, this is biased to
being more familiar with the players sound. nevertheless, since it
appears more pure in the midrange for some of favorite artists, i have
to give it the nod since i play a lot of folk/singer-songwriter music.
for jazz and classical, the further back perspective of the Sony seems
more expansive and impressive sounding.
then again, for $1995 versus $1400 (*), if i had to choose one player,
i would pick the XA-777. it's a very fine CD player, and for the
extra $600, the SACD capability makes it easily justifiable. if i were
"starting from scratch, i would probably buy the XA-777 and never look
back.
But having had the Arcam in my system for this long, it has definitely
warmed my spirits many a night, and i don't think i'll be parting with
it. it sounds better than the Sony on some discs (IMHO), and for the
7-800 i'd probably fetch for it on the used market, there is no point
in selling it and losing its capabilities.
i've spent considerable time over the past few months using either the
sony and arcam exclusively for CDs over periods up to 2 weeks (and
then switching to the other player). both offer a satisfying sound
for CDs, however different, as i've noted above. i've finally now
been able to distinguish which discs sound better (to my ears) on
which player. for vocals (folk/singer-songwriter music), i now opt
for the Arcam in general, for jazz and classical, it's mostly the Sony
(although the HDCDs still get the nod towards the Arcam)...for rock,
it's a toss up. the Arcam feels a little more in your face...with
poor recordings, i prefer the more laid back approach/soundstage
of the Sony.
Will i mod it?
Perhaps, a few years down the road. given the reported misc. problems
with the player, i'd like to see it perform stably for a few years
before voiding my 5 year warranty to eek out more performance. i'm
sure it can get better, but for now, i think it's plenty good to keep
me happy. so i'm just going to sit back and enjoy the music!
footnote:
(*) The Arcam Alpha 9 has long been replaced by the CD92 by Arcam. i
have heard this player firsthand, and based on my brief listening, i
have reached the conclusion that it is inferior to the Alpha 9. i
have heard others reach the same conclusion as well. for a sonic
equivalent, or perhaps better player, one needs to go for the Arcam
CD23 which, based on my recollection currentlyruns 2399. (it was only
2199 when i was looking!). then again, to be fair to the CD92 (which
appears to be better built than my Alpha 9), i have found that
isolation is terribly important with the Alpha 9. the cheap set of
vibrapods underneath my Alpha 9 made dramatic improvements to its
sound quality.

Product Weakness: noisy SACD disc spinning; doesn't default to SACD playback for a hybrid disc
Product Strengths: extraordinary SACD playback; decent valued CD playback; generally very built transport

Associated Equipment for this Review:
Amplifier:	Creek 5350SE
Preamplifier (or None if Integrated):	none
Sources (CDP/Turntable):	Arcam Alpha 9 and Sony XA-777ES
Speakers:	Magnepan MG1.6 + REL Storm
Cables/Interconnects:	Audioquest/Monster mix
Music Used (Genre/Selections):	All (see review)
Room Size (LxWxH):	13 x 11 x 8
Time Period/Length of Audition:	owned for 3-4 months
Type of Audition/Review:	Product Owner

Product Weakness:	noisy SACD disc spinning; doesn't default to SACD playback for a hybrid disc
Product Strengths:	extraordinary SACD playback; decent valued CD playback; generally very built transport