There is no noise with the K-01; it is dead silent. The build quality is superb. The machine is beautiful, a pleasure to use, look at and touch. The sound stage is extremely three dimensional. Instrument and voice separation is superb and emerges out of a black silent background. Music is very detailed and sounds more alive than any other CD player I have ever listened to. My prior CD player was the Esoteric X-01-D2. There is no comparison, the K-01 is in a different league. The improvement in sound was immediately obvious, right out of the box. I did not have to do an A-B comparison.
I really wanted to love the G-orb. But it made absolutely no improvement in sound with the K-01. I tried it with all types of music, various settings, Sacd, Cd. I focused on all aspects of sound: low level detail, dynamics, bass, treble, midrange, sound staging, timbre, instrument separation, voice, strings, jazz, classical, rock. Lengthy listening and A-B comparison with and with out the G-orb in the loop. I couldn't detect an improvement.
Regarding settings. I am still uncertain which one I like best. I would be interested in hearing what other K-01 owners like best and why. |
K-01 settings suggestion: 'Fir1' filter and '2x' upsampling. This combination sounds best to me so far. |
MIke60, and Matjet, it is great that yu like you k-01. I have k-03 and it is a great player.In my system and for my ears it bested x01-d2 and wadia s7i. Becaue my integrated has only RCA as diect conect to amplifier and I use only XLR cables, I cant compare how k-03 player sounds direct to amplifer. Can you provide any comments on this subject. It will be greatly appreciated. I am considering change to another amplifer and thiking running k-03 direct. Thank you. |
Denon1, if your integrated amp has an input for an external preamplifier, you should be able to connect K-03 to that input directly, or through an XLR 2 RCA adapter. G. |
I have not Tried the K-01 DIRECT TO THE AMPLIFIER. HAS ANYONE TRIED THIS YET? HOW DOES IT COMPARE WITH PLAYING IT THROUGH A HIGH-END PRE-AMP? |
Hey guys,
I just got delivery on the K-01, up till now I have been playing 5-6 CDs which means 7-8 hours already.
Understand it's still long way to fully broken in and have stabilise sounding, any K-01 owners can suggest the best way forward to get the break in done?
Thank you for any advise in advance.
Cheers |
Call Esoteric in USA, tell them you just purchased a K-01, ask them if the would send you a copy of their break-in CD. Set the K-01 to the cd setting you like best and play the break-in cd on repeat disc for at least 500 hours nonstop at very low volume (or any volume you want). I have been informed by Esoteric that every setting would require a break-in of at least 500 hours (including SACD, various filters and upsampling settings). For SACD break in, use an SACD with great dynamics. I have read that break in requires continuous play (ie: not turning off the machine) of at least 500 hours, not cummulative start and stop. I do not know if there is a scientific basis to the need for continuous play, it may be nothing more than opinion of a self proclaimed expert that has been perpetuated.
Despite what Esoteric and many others have said about the improvement with break in, I think the K-01 sounds great right out of the box, once it is warmed up. I think any improvement with break in is subtle.
Enjoy! |
Epic, I'm afraid there may be no substitute to putting K-01 on continuous repeat on some "meaty" material with lots of dynamics and complexity. Once a day turn the device off for 30 minutes and then restart the process.... and change sampling rate and filtering each time. On my X-01 breaking lasted a little over 1200 hours.... K-01, being based on AKM DACs instead of Burr Brown, may be different in this last respect. No need to leave your amplifier on during K-01 break-in. |
Mattjet, utilizing the Esoteric break-in CD is an excellent idea. As for cycling power on and off periodically during break-in, I have just heard from an Esoteric dealer that Esoteric may be recommending 16 hrs of playing time, followed by 8 hours of total downtime... I will check with Esoteric during the coming week.
I used to break-in equipment with continuous playing time.... However, I have heard from an extremely well respected equipment designer that allowing periodic cycling is more effective, because it fosters the overall "demagnetization" of dielectrics, capacitors, and other components. As I have not performed any a/b break-in myself, I do not know if cycling has an audible beneficial effect over simple continuous play.... But I suspect it can't do harm.
While I remain a babe in the woods, If indeed K-01 changes little with break-in, is something I hope to be able to experience on my own before too too long.
G. |
Guidocorona,
The break-in issue of electronics in hi fi equipment is an interesting topic. Although everyone seems to feel that break in of cables/electronics is important and results in improved sound. Most recomendations (if not all) are based on theory, not documented scientific experimentation. The results are subjective. My K-01 is fully broken-in. Does it sound better today than it did the day I bought it (once it warmed up)? I have no idea. The audible improvement, if any is subtle. I would need to do a direct A-B comparison of a broken-in unit to a non broken-in unit to detect a difference. The improvement is not dramatic and not easily detected IMHO. I am not saying breaking in equipment does not improve the sound. I am just saying, to my ears, the improvement (if there is an improvement) is subtle, On the other hand, when I upgraded my player from the X-01 D2 to the K-01, the improvement was easily detected, no A-B comaparison was required to detect and describe the improvement in sound, it was quite dramatic.
I also received an email from the retailer (audiofeil) with the same recommendation. I appreciate his help. I have heard from other's that break-in must be continuous. But, maybe Audiofeil is correct. Who knows the REAL answer? Probably no one, it is all based on theory, conjecture, opinion. I suggest that you call Esoteric, USA, and ask them directly for their recommended break-in protocol. Please let us know what they say.
By the way, I did speak with Mark at Esoteric a few times (I can't remember his last name) when I bought the unit, he sent me the break in cd, no charge. I can't remember any specifics on break-in other than it needed at least 500 hours and each filter/setting needed to be done for 500 hours, as if starting over. My unit was one of the very first sold in the U.S (I think it was the second one). They were churning them out very slowly at that time.
The Esoteric K-01 is a phenomenal cd/sacd player. I know you will enjoy it tremendously.
The Esoteric break in CD, by the way, is actually made by Isotek, Esoteric just put their name on it. |
Hi Matjet, it is quite possible that K-01 takes enormously less break-in than X-01 and its Ltd variant, for whatever reasons.
Up to now, for most equipment I have had in my system, except for certain wire products and conditioners, I have detected very significant audible yet subjective evolution for a duration ranging from 500 hours to 1200 hours, as I have occasionally reported in a handful of articles. It is also entirely possible that my experiences are pure self-hypnosis. Unfortunately, I can only report what I think I hear, and then make weak extrapolations solely based on my personal involvement in audible matters.
G. |
My Esoteric based APL NWO-M has a bunch of the latest AKM DAC chips in it. Although the machine sounded very good new, after about 359 hours, each format sounded significantly better to me.
In addition, there was no difference using my Esoteric G-os rubidium clock with the NWO-M, however when I used the clock with the UX-1 Ltd as transport only with another DAC, the clock DID make things sound noticeably better. I was not in the Esoteric room when the clock was A-B'd with the K-01 at RMAF. I now wish I had been Based upon my limited rubidium clock experience, I would agree with Matjet as to the clock's best use.
If indeed the clock made the K-01 sound better than just the K-01 by itself, as my friend Guido witnessed at RMAF, it totally calls into question the quality of the K-01's internal clock(s), I would think. Not sure how you can really AVOID such a conclusion. Again, I would want to hear the A-B myself, in my own system, before I can draw any conclusions about the K-01. |
"Unless the A-B comparison is performed as a blind test, it is useless; psychology can play tricks on audio perception."
Very good point matjet.... Fact is that, I did perform exactly that "blind" test with G-0Rb clock on K-01 at the Esoteric suite at RMAF... I started from an extremely skeptic position, because of past experience on X-01... But I had to change my mind.... and I seemed to have no problem determining when the clock was on or off.... How was my test "blind"? rather simple actually... I am in fact a blind audiofool and could not see what setting was being activated on the machine. G. |
Guidocorona,
Try the G-orb at home for a few weeks before you buy. Let me know what you think after a few weeks of home testing. |
Thanks alot guys for all the value info on breaking in the K-01. Will look into obtaining the esoteric break in disc.
On G0 rb clock benefits, sharing the below clock specs i read about when i was reading about the K-01.
Esoteric D-01/D-03: ±3ppm
Esoteric D-02/K-01/K-03: ±0.5ppm
Esoteric G-03X: ±0.1ppm
Antelope OCX: ±0.02ppm
Antelope Isochrone Trinity: ±0.001ppm
Esoteric G-0Rb: ±0.00005ppm
Antelope Isochrone 10M: ±0.00003ppm
Basis specs, that should explain why adding a more superior clock to the K-01 will hear some improvement.
In reality, one needs to hear for themselves if the improvement justify the cost for the clock.
Cheers |
Golden words matjet that I shall heed... I would definitely do some careful at home trials before committing to any clock... or any new CDp, including K-01... A false positive can turn into an, uhrn.... Expensive proposition:)!
Saluti, G. |
Anyone compared the K-01 to the EMM XDS1?
The XDS1 sounds really nice right out of the box.
'never heard the Esoteric. |
Anyone compare the K-01 to the EMM XDS1? |
Anyone compare the K-01 to the EMM XDS1? And what the point would be, comparing something that has a switching-mode power supply with a linear power? Regardless everything else (digital processing, DACs, analog output stages, etc.), just the power will make such a difference that one will go for the EMM or Esoteric based on the so called "synergy" with the rest of the audio system owned. As simple as that! Hope this helps! Best wishes, Alex Peychev |
"And what the point would be, comparing something that has a switching-mode power supply with a linear power?"
Hmm, considering the old Stravinskian recommendation by which a tree is best judged by its fruits, rather than solely by its roots, evaluating the relative audible prowess of Esoteric K-01 and EMM XDS1 side-by-side in the same system may be a rather fun experiment... And if sonic results turned out inconclusive, that would be an interesting finding as well.
G |
Esoteric K-01 and EMM XDS1 side-by-side in the same system may be a rather fun experiment... As always, and it will be sure conclusive, but for the given audio system both components (front-ends) are being evaluated. And make sure you have a really nice power conditioner or power re-generator for the EMM gear. Of course, you are correct; it will be fun, one way or the other. Part of the "hobby", right? :-) Best wishes, Alex Peychev |
Of course Alex, it is important to keep independent variables at a minimum.... Hence 2 well broken in CDPs should be in the same system, fed into identically broken in inputs of the pre, connected with identical and equally broken in ICs, and fed by identical power cords. Ideally, the two devices may be best set side-by-side on a rack, rather than on different shelves.
Interesting observation Alex about power conditioning on EMM.... Is EMM particularly sensitive to power conditioning? .... Why would this be the case more so than on Esoteric K-01?
Saluti, G. |
I have found comparing pces in general as mentioned above really isn't all that easy due to so many varibles that come into play.
#1 rca and xlr connections sonic characteristics vary.
#2 which connections are preffered and/or the strengths of the actual pce. I wouldn't use rca if xlr were the strengths visa versa.
#3 one IC that works well with one pce may not with the other.
#4 just removing an IC and connecting a different pce there can be a difference.
#5 some cables need to relax and seem to change once they have been removed and replaced
#6 Power cords, which one, just because one works well with one pce doesn't mean it's the ideal match for the other.
#7 Isolation, just because one works well doesn't mean the other one will be as ideal
#8 power conditioning also, same as #6 & #7
#9 there are other variables to consider depending on the rest of your set-up, one pce may convey something that you are missing or prefer. Lets say bass, maybe product "a" appears to be providing bass that you haven't heard in your system before but product "b" isn't.
Does this make product "a" better than product "b"?
So how are you really being able to compare or does it just come down to a personal what you like and prefer?
Just my two cents
|
Of course Alex, it is important to keep independent variables at a minimum My point was that, there will still be variables which apply for the particular audio system in which both front-end units are being tested. Some will find the outcome helpful, some not. But I agree it will be fun, as always. :-) Interesting observation Alex about power conditioning on EMM.... Is EMM particularly sensitive to power conditioning? .... Why would this be the case more so than on Esoteric K-01? Because EMM has a switching power supply and the K-01 does not. So the EMM is much more sensitive to the power source compared to the Esoteric. Best wishes, Alex Peychev |
Dev,
Excellent points, it is difficult to eliminate the many variables when attempting to fairly compare components in an A/B format. |
:Does this make product "a" better than product "b"?"
Typically, I avoid the terms "better" and "best" like the proverbial plague. I tend to use variants of the term "prefer" instead, in an as narrowly defined context as I can . However, I recommend that a general discussion on comparative auditioning procedures and merits be continued on a dedicated thread.... I am positive there exist a number of such items on Agon already, without the need to dilute this K-01-specific discussion any further with admittedly fascinating metatopics. |
I believe the new Esoteric P02/D02 has been released. Apparently, it will replace the P03/D03. It will be interesting to see how it compares to the K-01. Alex, Guidocorona, any ideas? |
Guilocorona,
said;
"Hence 2 well broken in CDPs should be in the same system, fed into identically broken in inputs of the pre, connected with identical and equally broken in ICs, and fed by identical power cords. Ideally, the two devices may be best set side-by-side on a rack, rather than on different shelves."
I don't agree with your way for comparisions, it's flawed, way to many other variables.
|
My apologies Dev, as I mentioned already, analitical methodologies are best discussed in a dedicated thread. Guido |
According to Esoteric at RMAF, P02/D02 is supposed to be a quantum improvement from the P03/D03. 35 bit DACs are also mentioned, or something like that. I would presume, just from release timing and relative costs, that the P02/D02 will smoke the K-01.
I do know that I prefer my newly-improved NWO-M to what I've heard of the K-01 at this point as well, although I'd obviously need to have the K-01 in my system to be absolutely sure of the differences I am hearing. At this point, I don't feel the players are close enough to warrant such a test.
P02/D02 vs APL NWO-M would probably be a more interesting comparison, IMHO. |
Hi Harvey, not having had Alex's NWO nor K-01 or P02/D02 in my own system, I would not dare even venturing an uneducated guess on my preferences... But I hope none of them would ever emit plumes of "competitive smoke" in my music loft... Would be, uhrn.... So undignified of them *grins!* G. |
Guido, it amazes me that some think that what they have to write is the end all but others are not important.
Sorry but you opened up the discussion posting your method so I was just responding, obviously you don't like it and that's too bad I don't see anything wrong.
I'm actually interested in the K-01 and it's a very exspensive unit, if someone is going to be commenting as you have mentioned that you will be I would like to know how they did it along how they came to such, your way mentioned above is very questionable.
|
There is no 35 bit DACs in the P02/D02; it has the same AK4399 as used in the K-01 (8 per channel) which can process maximum of 32 bits. They probably mean 35 bit processing, which provides some headroom with most audio formats.
I am absolutely certain that the P02/D02 is an extremely good sounding product and I can't wait for someone to compare it with the NWO-M. Same applies to the K-01. :-)
Matjet, I'd stick with the K-01 because it is missing the digital interface between transport and DAC. It is just me, but I favor purer solutions.
Best wishes,
Alex Peychev |
Well, my XDS1 sounds pretty awesome & natural & un-analytical with a Hydra V-Ray, Shunyata Anaconda Helix powercord, and a little nicer and fuller through the XLR outputs with Stealth Indra ICs. |
Alex, you are absolutely correct. Esoteric marketing mgr in Denver did state that P02/D02 utilized some form of 35 bits processing, rather than sporting 35 bits DACs. G. |
Guys- I knew I'd heard "35 bits", but had forgotten the content. G- That was the head of Esoteric Tech Support who was running the show (Tim Crable), NOT the marketing guy (Mark Gurvey), FWIW. |
Harv, Tim Crable is now Esoteric marketing manager, although he may be retaining some tech services management functions as well. According to my information, Mark Gurvey has left Esoteric. G. |
WOW Guido - as always, you got your finger on the hot pulse of all things audio. I stand corrected - had no idea of that change. |
Alex - How does the NWO-M compare sonically with the P01/D01/Gorb combo ? Or is that an unfair comparison given the huge price differential ? |
Alex,
I find your comment regarding digital interference interesting. You think the K01 may sound better than the much more expensive two unit P02/D02 (make that 3 units if the G-orb is included)? Can you explain in layman's terms?
Thanks |
Alex - How does the NWO-M compare sonically with the P01/D01/Gorb combo ? Or is that an unfair comparison given the huge price differential ? Hi Mark, The P01/D01 (two mono) an Gorb combo sound very good and clean indeed. As reported to me, some prefer the NWO because it sounds more analog/natural. Of course, you must hear for yourself and decide. Best wishes, Alex Peychev |
Alex,
I find your comment regarding digital interference interesting. You think the K01 may sound better than the much more expensive two unit P02/D02 (make that 3 units if the G-orb is included)? Can you explain in layman's terms? Matjet, I am certain that there are other factors making the P02/D02 superior sounding compared to the K-01. Of course, if everything is made absolutely equal, I believe that the unit without the digital interface will sound better. You'd probably agree that, regardless of how good the digital interface is, it can never be as pure as a short wire connecting the transport and DACs internally. Furthermore, during our experiments with the NWO-M, I've found that different wire materials (Silver, Gold, plated, copper, OFC, etc.) connecting the transport and DACs all have their own sonic signature, just like it happens with interconnect cables, for example. Hope this explains it! Best wishes, Alex Peychev |
"I am certain that there are other factors making the P02/D02 superior sounding compared to the K-01.
Hi Alex, In your opinion, would those "other factors necessitate using two boxes or could the P02/D02 been designed as a superior one box solution? |
Alex, Thank you for your explanation. Have you compared the NWO-M to the Esoteric K-01? How do they compare sonically? |
Hi Alex, In your opinion, would those "other factors necessitate using two boxes or could the P02/D02 been designed as a superior one box solution? Hi Phaelon, there are many possibilities; better power supplies and digital signal processing (they say 35 bit), for example. Best wishes, Alex Peychev |
Alex, Thank you for your explanation. Have you compared the NWO-M to the Esoteric K-01? How do they compare sonically? Matjet, You're welcome! No one has compared the K-01 with the NWO-M so far, but I am really looking forward to it. The AK4399 in the K-01 (and the new D-02) are used according to the AKM datasheet design guide (normal mode) with "Digital Filter Bypass". The "normal mode" AK4399 configuration was used in the NWO-4.0-SE. The proprietary "special mode" we have incorporated with AK4399 made such a difference resulting in NWO-Master. And of course we have 20 DACs per channel against 8, so I am not sure if comparing the K-01 with the NWO-M will be fair at all. Best wishes, Alex Peychev |
Has anyone compared the USB inputs of the K-01 vs the Coaxial inputs of the K-01 (using a Spdif to USB converter) ?
Would be curious is the coaxian input is better than the USB inputs for computer audio.
Thanks in advance. |
On G0 rb clock benefits, sharing the below clock specs i read about when i was reading about the K-01.
Esoteric D-02/K-01/K-03: ±0.5ppm
Antelope Isochrone 10M: ±0.00003ppm A friend of mine had tried Antelope Isochrone 10M atomic clock with his K-01 and wasn't able to tell the difference. The clock was returned to the dealer. I do think that you can do better than Antelope Isochrone 10M, as far as external clocks are concerned. Just spend your money on better cables, amp etc. instead. |
What are everyone's experience with break in time on K-01? |
|
