[Joe Bloggs]

Yeah, I said a $1000-1500 budget, but I'm just realizing how much of my summer job income this would chew

And with my ears straining to hear the differences so far, maybe, no, probably I should go for something cheaper for now until either my ears have improved or my pockets have deepened (hopefully the latter before the former!

)

Look at the specs for the SCD-XB940 vs the XA333ES:

SCD-XA333ES
2 Channel / Multi-Channel SACD, CD, CDR/RW Playback Capacity
Dual Laser Pick Up Device
Super Audio D/A Converter
DSD Filter
Multi-Channel Management System
Direct Digital Sync.
Twin R-Core Transformer
Twin EI Transformer
Digital Output: Optical / Coaxial
Analogue Output: Unbalance
Multi-Channel Audio Out


SCD-XB940
RF Processor
DSD Decoder for SACD
ACP System for SACD
24-Bit Variable Coefficient Digital Filter for CD
STACT Synchronous Time Accurary Controller
Current Pulse D/A Converter
CD Text Capability
Full Remote Control

The part in bold is missing from the XA333ES. Now of course there's lots of stuff that the 333ES has that the XB940 is missing--but the part in bold appears to pertain directly to CD playback and jitter control?

Who knows, perhaps it even plays redbook CDs better

 

[markl]

Don't know what STACT is but the other one is simply referring to the selectable filter which is also found on the 333ES.

Build quality and internal parts quality on the 333ES will clobber the XB940.

markl

 

[markl]

Wait a minute though, are you sure it's the XA333ES? This might be different from the SCD-333ES we know and love here in the states. The specs also talk about multi-channel that the US player does not do, it's 2-channel only. 555ES is multi-channel.

 

[jude]

markl,

I believe the SCD-XA333ES was a non-U.S.-market single-disc SACD/CD player.

 

[bootman]

Quote:

24-Bit Variable Coefficient Digital Filter for CD STACT Synchronous Time Accurary Controller

Sounds like marketing is at it again!

 

[Redwoood]

And it's Sony's stupid naming scheme again....

They have so many different devices with similar
product numbers, it's no surprise people are confused.

BTW: I think the XA version plays in a league above
the US non-XA version, performance and price-wise...

Bye

Redwoood

 

[jude]

Quote:

Originally posted by bootman Sounds like marketing is at it again!

Actually, the variable filters are quite useful with some CDs (it only works with CDs, not SACDs). A couple of the filters can actually take some of the bite off some recordings with harsh highs. Some recordings seem quite unaffected by the filters. But when they work, they're useful.

 

[Joe Bloggs]

XB sounds like a later generation than XA?

Perhaps something like the XB1000ES will come out and beat the socks off all the XAxxxES players.

In the meantime I want to save some money

 

[bootman]

Quote:

Originally posted by jude Actually, the variable filters are quite useful with some CDs (it only works with CDs, not SACDs). A couple of the filters can actually take some of the bite off some recordings with harsh highs. Some recordings seem quite unaffected by the filters. But when they work, they're useful.

So the US 333ES has the filters?
Do the current ES offerings have this feature?
Adjusting the brightness switch on the Max has a similar affect?
In other words does the filter just impose a high end rolloff?
(I figure above 16kHz or so since it isn't audible on some recordings)

 

[jude]

Quote:

Originally posted by bootman So the US 333ES has the filters? Do the current ES offerings have this feature? Adjusting the brightness switch on the Max has a similar affect? In other words does the filter just impose a high end rolloff? (I figure above 16kHz or so since it isn't audible on some recordings)

It's not like the Max's brightness switch. The Max's "filter" switch seems to have an effect over a wider range, and to a greater degree.

As you figured, the filter on the SCD-C333ES does seem to have an effect only on the uppermost frequencies. If one doesn't have sensitive hearing up there, it'll probably not be noticed as much. Also, as you pointed out, if the recording doesn't have much material up there, it might not be as noticeable.