CD Player break in period

When I used the term "test CD" I was referring to good old standards that I knew like the back of my hand.
For my "final test" of the esoteric, I had used a certain femlale vocal, which, after playing the CD on other systems, made the flaw in the recording evident. While my prior kW sounded awesome, and I had thought revealing, it did not exploit this flaw. I no longer use that CD as my final benchmark. This CD (Rebecca Pigeon) was just toted in one of the stereo rags as a great system "test" CD.

Thank you for you good wishes, and your input.

Cerrot, I'll take the minority view. While I have not used an Esoteric X-03SE, I am a delighted user of Esoteric X-01 Limited. When brand new the device was closed in and sternly harsh. Not at all listenable up to 250 hrs or so. Good -- with a lot of caveats -- at about 500. Very good at about 800 hrs. X-01 kept improving up to about 1200 hrs. It is now extremely musical, but still merciless with harsh recordings optimized for boomboxes, which sound hidious. Paradoxically, it drags every little ounce of music out of old recordings, making these exquisitely enjoyable. If X03 is anything like X-01, it will benefit from a good power chord. I use the Shunyata Anaconda Alpha Helix with good success. Some X-01 users have preferred the slightly richer sounding Purist anniversary. Avoid PCs with some sizzle at the top or trimness in the mids. Regardless, trust your own ears. If your ears tell you that the sound is still changing. . . that is because it is!

Guido,

I appreciate your input greatly, not because you agree, but because of the detiled info you provided which has actually assisted me in my task. I was going to post last night but, instead, just had to run in the sound room and listen to some Yo yO Ma ( I also wemt back and read some of your other posts, and, I did upgrade to a Python Helix Vx last week). His Cello sounded amazing.

Thank you for yor refreshing perspective.

Cerrot: "made the flaw in the recording evident"...

This is a bit of a tangent, but if you spent just five minutes in a professional recording studio, you might realise there's no such thing as a perfect recording.
In my former life as a muso and having done several recordings in various small and large studios (in Australia), I think you'd be horrified to see the way some things are done and with what equipment, as I was.

That's not to say there aren't plenty of brilliant recordings out there, but at some point, your system is likely to exceed the limits of many recordings. You have to decide how much of that you're prepared to live with.

Cerrot, I purchased my UX-3 used, but I'm reasonably certain the unit had not been played very many hours (mfg date was just 3 months from the date I received it). My starting point with the UX-3 is therefore somewhat unknown, but this is what I found: upon first listen I was a little worried that it would be too "digital" sounding. It didn't sound as "smooth" as my previous APL3910, but it was more dynamic and detailed.

After a week of non stop play, it became significantly "smoother", but still the strengths of the player were evident...dynamics, detail, and impact. Over the next few weeks, the player became "balanced". By this I mean, the strengths of the player were clearly the same BUT, the player "opened up" in a way that helped transport me to the event. High frequencies were no longer spot-lit, but contributed to putting in context the venue of the recording and filling out the overtones of the instruments in a more natural way. I was very happy with the player at this point, but wondered what was possible, given the obvious strengths of the player.

I then sent my UX-3 to Steve Huntley of GNSC and he spent a great deal of time performing a Statement mod to the player. This mod involved the addition of a great many Black Gate caps in the power supply section as well as many other passive part upgrades and power supply filtering. When I got it back, it was clearly a half step back from when I sent it out. Over the next few weeks of constant play, it opened up in such a natural way...much better than before. The strengths no longer stand out, it's extremely well balanced and serves to bring me to the event. This is not to say that it is not dynamic and detailed...it is...it's just always in support of the music, not something of its own.

Bad sounding CD's still sound bad, but the difference is that they are listenable AND I can tell why. Different spaces, mic placement, mixing and mastering decisions are much more easily discerned. To me, particularly with the UX-3, the burn in process is a balancing process.

The dynamic and low-level detail capabilities of the UX-3 allow for a more involving listening session. In particular, the micro dynamic capabilities, combined with the detail retrieval allow me to get alot closer to what a musician is doing. They are not, however, something by themselves...dynamics and detail are present in such a way as the sound is more believable, not "impressive" if you understand what I mean?

To me, these qualities are an essential platform to get closer to the music. It must be balanced though...the highs have to open up and they do with time. If your system tends to emphasize some of the stronger qualities of the Esoteric though, you could lose the balance.

Good luck!

Jordan