Transporter vs Ayre CX-7e

Mtdking, Below is ypur post from March, 08. What happened to change your mind?

Boy if you can stretch to around $6000 yo can get a Esoteric X-01 used. I think that is one of the very best players made. We know it has the best transport.

I compared it to other players in my own house. The ONLY way to tell if one player works for you or not is to compare it in your own house on your own gear so you know what your hearing. I also upgraded my speakers, amps and preamp. I had a system that was not well balanced before when I had the Esoteric.

I don't agree that 1000 hours is required for break in. IF you can tell what electronically speaking happens after 1000 hours I might be able to believe you. Break in is very subjective in the first place. Some people believe your ears just adjust and that is your break in. I heard no difference after 100 hours and up to 4000+ hours. Yes I was using it balanced.

I now use Vandersteen 5A, Lamm M1.2 ref and VTL 7.5 preamp. Before I was using Watt Puppy 7 with Ayre MXR so it needed to be tamed.

I don't know your room and system so the Esoteric might work the best for you. You really don't see any reviewers using Esoteric players so that might tell you something.

Just giving my 2 cents so take it for what it's worth....

Thanks. I'm not asking you to believe me on the break in, I was just sharing my experience. I do understand break in time can be system dependent. The Esoteric works really well in my system and I am eying the Ayre MXR amps. I have auditioned them a few times and if it wasn't that I would need to upgrade my preamp and speakers at the same time, I would have gone for them already. I am happy with what I have currently but am drooling over your gear. That is some awesome equipment you have. Happy listening and thanks for the feedback.

THanks to everyone for their feedback and advice. I have decided (for now) to keep the Transporter. I just bought a Musical Fidelity KW500 integrated and finished acoustically treating my room so I'll see what the combination of these changes does to the sound. I'm hoping for good things :-)

Next upgrade may just be the Modwright upgrades for my Transporter.

Anyway, thanks again!

You are talking about a $2,000 DAC (Transporter) versus a $6,000 disc player, and an Ayre at that. The Ayre is going to be better. The DAC is better. The outputs are better.

The Transporter is not something you trade in for a disc player. The Transporter has the potential to be a true end-game device because once you are done with the DAC and analog portions and are ready to upgrade, the Transporter has almost limitless potential when paired with a proper DAC like a dCS, Esoteric, or similar device. The Transporter, as a pure Transport, is an extremely formidable and cost effective device.

Yes the Ayre sounds better but it is also utterly obsolete. It has no digital input! Hard drive based storage and error correction and the ability to browse your library by remote should now be baseline features of all non SACD based audiophile systems. At the very least, any high-end disc player should accept a digital coax input from a music server.

If I were you, I would enjoy the Transporter for what it is now and save up for a real reference outboard DAC to pair it with. The end result will be a lot better than the Ayre. I dumped a $5,000 Goldmund transport for a $300 Squeezebox and got equally good if not better results with my dCS Delius and Purcell upsampler. I am getting even better results now that I am playing around with EAC and error correction.

Don't spend your money on disc players if you already have a Transporter. If you want something better, than just make the Transporter a dedicated Transport and get a better DAC.

I will consider Ayre disc players again when they accept external digital sources.