E.Sound E3 CD Player Review

Introduction, Remote, and Listening Evaluation

Trekking a long on my series of disc player reviews, I stumbled a cross a Chinese unit. In a conversation with Mark Levine of Allied TV & Sound (the North American importer), I first heard of this brand. He raved about this unit. My cynical nature and desensitization to the enthusiasm of manufacturers/distributors has resulted in me being almost completely immune to the over-the-top pitches reviewers are commonly subjected to. But with Mark, I had to give his words a lot more credence, since his thoughts on the Cayin 265Ai integrated were on the mark (no pun intended).

What can I tell you about the East-Sound company? Not very much, other than they are based in China and like Cayin seem to produce a large range of electronic components. Like many other Chinese manufacturers they have spent little or no effort in translating their website, promotional literature or owner's manual into English. Unfortunately, for this review, I will have to rely solely on what I can gather from the sound and a peek into the chassis.

This is absolutely the beefiest disc player I have ever come across, I would estimate it weighs at least 20 lbs. Encased in what seems to be a stamped metal chassis, with a mirror like gold-chrome front plate and gold-finish buttons. The unit comes with screw-on isolation tips, which look like they a remilled from solid-steel. This player certainly gives the look and feel of a high-end unit.

From left to right the front panel has a la rge gold-finish power button, a blue LED indicating the phase invert status, the drawer with the readout panel under and 4 smaller buttons for open/stop, play/pause, back and forward.

The rear panel, from left to right, features one set of balanced XLR outputs and one set of RCA, coax and optical digital jacks and a receptacle for a power cord.

Where this unit will take your breath a way is the inside. A torroidal transformer large enough to power a small amp is at the back of the unit, directly behind the drive unit. The left side of the player has the power supply board, neatly laid out with large capacitors standing like soldiers information. The DAC and output stage are on a separate board cleverly placed away from the power supply. It makes one wonder why more players are not outfitted and laid out like this.

Remote Control

A full function remote is supplied with this unit. The most concise description of the remote I can give is that it takes every opportunity to miss the mark in every way possible. First, and this is the least of its problems, you have to remove 4 screws and open the unit just to change the batteries. The buttons a re micro-sized rubber dots recessed into an aluminum body, and are very difficult to press. Finally, when you do manage to press one it takes the command forever to register and execute. Speaking of execute - there is a suggestion for whoever designed this remote! Well, now that I have gotten that of my chest I feel much better - on to the good stuff...

Listening Evaluation

All tests were done only with the RCA outputs of this player. I did compare the two outputs and did not notice a difference in sound quality. The first set of comparisons were done against the Creek CD50 MkII (MSRP $1500). As usual, all tests were done at level matched settings.

'Market Blues' (Neal Pattman, Prison Blues, MusicMaker, 91003-2).

The differences between these units were very small in absolute terms, and it took me many iterations of switching players over the same track to find them. Having said that, I can say that the E.Sound eked ahead of the Creek in the reproduction of the macro-dynamics of Mr. Pattman's vocals and harp. The high frequencies also seemed a little more detailed on the E.Sound.

'Yesterdays' (Dave Bruebeck, Nightshift, Telarc, CD83351)

The differences were so small that I would have to call them an impression rather than an astute observation. The E.Sound seemed a bit 'cleaner', as if the sheerest veil had been lifted and the background was quieter.

'General Image and Resolution test' (Chesky J a zz a nd Audiophile tests Vol2; Chesky; JD68)

I use this track as an acid-test of the soundstage and imaging. I could not tell a difference in the players in this respect, breadth or depth. To test the ability of both players in this regard, I placed the speakers 3' from both ears and each other. The liner notes say that on the highest resolution systems, it should seem that all the musicians are running a circle around you. I can confidently say that I experienced this with all the musicians except for the one with the shaker. This shortcoming may have been of the disc players or the rest of my rig, I cannot say with certainty. But, I can say that these two players delivered the best rendition I have ever heard on this track.

Listening Tests and Conclusion

'Bass resolution test' (Chesky Records; Chesky Jazz and Audiophile tests Vol2; Chesky; JD68)

The E.Sound had noticeably more heft in the lower bass. There also was a tad more detail in the background noises that can be heard on the last 3 seconds of the track, after the instrument has stopped playing.

Overall, I have no complaints with the sound. It certainly was not lacking in anything in comparison to the Creek, which I felt was better than the 2 players before it.

The next set of comparisons was to the Lexicon RT-10 ($3,500).

'Yesterdays' (Dave Bruebeck; Nightshift; Telarc; CD83351)

Comparing CD playback on the E.Sound to the Lexicon, proved to be quite a challenge. The magnitude of the difference between the performances of these players is very small indeed, and I had to switch between playing small segments of the track between both players many times before I could reliably discern a difference. I would have to call this splitting hairs. It is times like this when I wish I had the wherewithal to conduct blind listening tests, to make sure my conclusions are not based on some bias in my own mind.

Nonetheless, here is what I found. The E.Sound gave the piano keys a smidgen more richness and the individual notes were better separated in time and space. Where the E.Sound significantly lead the Lexicon was in detail. This sonically and aesthetically outstanding album was recorded live at the Blue Note club in New York city, and there is a lot of ambient information during the relatively quiet parts of this track. This low-level ambient noise was so realistically reproduced by the E.Sound, that several times I was fooled into thinking that something was a stir in my house. There is an irony here, which only audiophiles would appreciate, about the player being so 'involving' that it resulted in being distracting. While I heard a lot of that detail with the Lexicon, it was not a s convincing as with the E.Sound. I would attribute this to what seemed like a lower noise floor in the E.Sound, which by contrast makes the detail and imaging stand out better.

'Rimshot' (Eryka Badu; Baduism; Universal; UD53027) and 'All or nothing at all' (Diana Krall; Love Scenes; Impulse; IMPD233 )

Again, the two players were very close in performance and I could not reliable pick out any differences on these tracks. There is another lesson here. Subjectively, I would say that the 'Nightshift' album is of higher resolution than these two recordings which perhaps explains why I was able to find minute differences listening to it and not when using tracks from 'Baduism' or 'Love scenes'. An important conclusion for readers is that unless you are listening to recordings of a very high resolution, you may be impervious to some of the differences between players. This also should further illustrate how small indeed the differences between disc players can be.

'Bass resolution test' (Chesky Records; Chesky Jazz and Audiophile tests Vol2; Chesky; JD68)

The Lexicon and the E.Sound proved to be equals in terms of bass depth and quality. The resonance of the plucked strings lingered on just a bit longer and distinctly with the E.Sound. Again, I would attribute this as better detail due to a quieter noise floor.

The final set of comparisons were done against the Adcom GDV-850 ($1,000), which also offers DVD and DVD-A capabilities..

'Coming of the Mandinka ' (V.M. Bhatt, Taj Mahal; Mumtaz Mahal; Waterlily Acoustics; WLA-CS-46-SACD)

Differences were difficult to pick out on this track, but were there. The E.Sound had slightly better dynamics, especially noticeable in the 'woah's and 'hey's that Taj Mahal shouts out. I might not have noticed a shortcoming with the Adcom by itself, but when directly compared to the E.Sound the difference was evident. The vocal peaks seemed higher and more natural on the E.Sound, only in comparison did the Adcom seem like it was compressing the peaks a bit.

'Yesterdays' (Dave Bruebeck; Nightshift; Telarc;CD83351)

The E.Sound had a lot more detail in the higher frequencies. The resonance of the piano notes seemed to last longer and were slightly better separated from each other. The Adcom made the piano sound a bit more distant and smaller in size, compared to the upfront and expansive instrument the E.Sound painted. Here person al taste probably matters more than an absolute edict.

Conclusion

Other than my belly aching about the remote, what is not to like? The cosmetics are befitting high-end and in my opinion, its fidelity is on par or a bit better than the Creek, Adcom and Lexicon units. Now when you factor in that it retails for $700USD, you realize that this is not only an excellent player it is also an excellent value.

My only concern with this player is its playback format limitations. While I would prefer one unit for all formats, I would be willing to have a CD only player if I could not find that level of CD performance in an affordable multi-format player. I would hazard a guess, that it is going to be nearly impossible to find this level of CD playback in a multi-format player at a price anywhere near $700 for the CD section. I am actually very tempted to buy this unit for myself.

If you have an extensive CD collection and are serious about two-channel listening you should consider this player, unless you have an astronomical budget. Based on the samples used for comparison in this review, I would conclude that you probably need to plunk a lot more dough than the comparative players I used above, to expect better performance.

The Score Card

The scoring below is based on each piece of equipment doing the duty it is designed for. The numbers are weighed heavily with respect to the individual cost of each unit, thus giving a rating roughly equal to:

Performance × Price Factor/Value = Rating

Audioholics.com note: The ratings indicated below are based on subjective listening and objective testing of the product in question. The rating scale is based on performance/value ratio. If you notice better performing products in future reviews that have lower numbers in certain areas, be aware that the value factor is most likely the culprit. Other Audioholics reviewers may rate products solely based on performance, and each reviewer has his/her own system for ratings.

Audioholics Rating Scale

• — Excellent
• — Very Good
• — Good
• — Fair
• — Poor

Metric	Rating
Analogue Audio Performance
Build Quality
Ergonomics & Usability
Features
Remote Control
Performance
Value