*NEW* Esoteric Grandioso C1X solo

crwilli said:
...I found it to turn easily and the display to show the input without issue.
Click to expand...

On my C1X the input select has about 10 times the turning resistance compared to the volume control. The C1X solo input select must be fundamentally different in design, aside from also functioning as the on/off control (C1X on/off button is on the power supply not the main unit).
 
I recently completed the second step in replacing my Gryphon Diablo 300 with a Luxman M-10X amp and a Grandioso C1X solo preamp. Prior to buying the C1X solo, I had installed three positively reviewed solid state/tube preamp loaners in the solo's price range. Results were positive but not so much as I’d hoped for. After speaking with crwilli and Mike (thanks, guys!) and seeing the Stereophile review of the solo’s big brother, the C1X, I decided to take a chance. To sum up, for my music (classical and jazz), in my system, to my ears, this is an outstanding preamp! Dynamics and bass, which were Diablo strong points, are here with this amp/pre combo. But the additional refinement, soundstage precision and dimensionality (especially depth), and lack of treble glare set the solo apart. There have been a number of goosebump inducing moments with this pre, and, surprisingly, I have re-discovered and enjoyed a number of older, previously painful-to-hear recordings that I'd relegated to the archives.

Perhaps worth noting: My source is an Esoteric K-01XD SACD Player, and there are synergies here. These units are connected with XLR links, but shortly after installation I decided to configure the units to exploit Esoteric’s proprietary ES-Link protocol via the XLR physical links. The sonic result seemed slightly positive, but certainly not definitive as I was early in the break-in process when I made the change. I have not revisited this. A second point: Both Esoterics can be conveniently controlled via the Player’s remote. Third point: Pictures don't do this thing full justice; it is beautiful!
 
GSOphile said:
..These units are connected with XLR links, but shortly after installation I decided to configure the units to exploit Esoteric’s proprietary ES-Link protocol via the XLR physical links.
Click to expand...

Just to be clear, ES-Link is a digital protocol which uses a HDMI cable. C1X solo does not support ES-Link. What you are using is ES-Link Analog. The main advantage of ES-Link Analog is it's a current mode interface which is virtually agnostic to the interconnect cable. So you can use a really cheap XLR interconnect cable without losing audio fidelity.
 
In a post above, I mentioned that I chose to use Esoteric's ESLA link protocol between my K-01XD Player and my new C1X solo over standard XLR interconnects, thinking it's a proprietary feature so it must be at least marginally better. My initial impression was that it sounded more refined. Didn't do any follow-up, in part because specifying the link protocol to be used in both units is a PITA setup process. But as time passed, I started to feel less involvement with some favorite music, less bass, maybe less air. Was I imagining this or ....? So I went back to standard XLR protocol. Wow! The magic was back! If you have a solo, I doubt that setting up ESLA INPUT links will prove worthwhile. As always, YMMV. (ESLA OUTPUT links, however, may be another story - can't say because I don't own a supporting Esoteric amp).

So what happened? The protocol used between my K-01XD and the solo appears to be first generation ESLA requiring only setup definition for connecting XLR links. A second generation (?) is promoted* as a new solo output feature. It is implemented by reversing physical XLR links between the outputting solo and a new XLRA equipped Esoteric amp (via new reversed XLR sockets on both units), and thus not requiring link setup definitions.

* The prior generation ESLA input links were not mentioned/promoted as a solo feature.
 
brodricj said:
Where is second generation ESLA promoted in any Esoteric marketing?
Click to expand...
Under solo features on the Esoteric website (it's not called second generation ESLA - that's me):
"ES-Link Analog
"With the flagship Grandioso amplifier models, Esoteric is breaking new ground by pushing the limits of fidelity in pre-preamp-to-amplifier signal transmission. Esoteric’s unique current transmission system “ES-Link Analog” is the ideal method for preamp to amplifier transmission where the signal level is extremely low. Compared to the conventional voltage transmission, it transmits approximately 100 times more current, making it less susceptible to noise and sending the full energy of the music to the amplifier.
"Also, it is not affected by the impedance of the interconnects running between the preamp and amplifier, so it maintains a perfect integrity between the output signal of the preamp and the input signal to the amplifier."
 
It's not a second generation iteration of ESLA. I read into it some marketing trickery. I'm not sure how much uniqueness there is about the Esoteric current transmission method. Halcro does current mode, so does Krell. And some others also. I've got a hunch they might all be compatible with each other with the right connectors on each end of the cable (Halcro uses a standard RCA connector, Krell has its own connector). The Esoteric marketing you mentioned focuses on preamp-to-amplifier signal transmission. The electrical characteristics of that part of the signal chain are different from source>preamp. It might be the case the main advantage of the current mode is for a long cable run preamp>amplifier. I use ESLA between D1X>C1X, and I use current mode Halcro preamp>Halcro amplifier.
 
brodricj said:
It's not a second generation iteration of ESLA. I read into it some marketing trickery. I'm not sure how much uniqueness there is about the Esoteric current transmission method. Halcro does current mode, so does Krell. And some others also. I've got a hunch they might all be compatible with each other with the right connectors on each end of the cable (Halcro uses a standard RCA connector, Krell has its own connector). The Esoteric marketing you mentioned focuses on preamp-to-amplifier signal transmission. The electrical characteristics of that part of the signal chain are different from source>preamp. It might be the case the main advantage of the current mode is for a long cable run preamp>amplifier. I use ESLA between D1X>C1X, and I use current mode Halcro preamp>Halcro amplifier.
Click to expand...
"Second generation" was my speculative term for the pre -> amp ESLA implementation because the physical implementation differs from the K-01XD->CiX solo (and I think your D1X->C1X). Electrically they may well be the same and my speculation unjustified. At any rate, my K-01XD->C1X solo ESLA experience was negative vs. XLR. As always YMMV.
 
Yep, but my point was, if you had an Esoteric power amp the ESLA link from the C1X solo might win over the voltage mode connection. I don't have an Esoteric power amp to make that comparison for myself.
 
And honestly, Stereophile didn’t do the new M1X any favors with its review. Makes me pause before even considering them as an option to allow the ESLink connection. I pull love to be able to test it out with their latest monos but having to keep Class A mono locked on 24/7 is a non-starter here in the low country of S.C.
 
crwilli said:
And honestly, Stereophile didn’t do the new M1X any favors with its review. Makes me pause before even considering them as an option to allow the ESLink connection. I pull love to be able to test it out with their latest monos but having to keep Class A mono locked on 24/7 is a non-starter here in the low country of S.C.
Click to expand...

Actually it was Esoteric who didn't do themselves any favors. There is a YouTube video of the Esoteric guys discussing the new M1X and they recommended leaving it on 24/7 for five days to reach its sonic peak. No thanks, not for me. And I told them so.
 
GSOphile said:
In a post above, I mentioned that I chose to use Esoteric's ESLA link protocol between my K-01XD Player and my new C1X solo over standard XLR interconnects, thinking it's a proprietary feature so it must be at least marginally better. My initial impression was that it sounded more refined. Didn't do any follow-up, in part because specifying the link protocol to be used in both units is a PITA setup process. But as time passed, I started to feel less involvement with some favorite music, less bass, maybe less air. Was I imagining this or ....? So I went back to standard XLR protocol. Wow! The magic was back! If you have a solo, I doubt that setting up ESLA INPUT links will prove worthwhile. As always, YMMV. (ESLA OUTPUT links, however, may be another story - can't say because I don't own a supporting Esoteric amp).
Click to expand...
This past weekend I did a followup on my XLR to ESLA link protocol comparison. The results were different and not subtle. The proprietary ESLA link protocol yielded greater dynamics, especially in the bass, and greater clarity/detail.... to the point where one might want to change their PCM up-conversion setting. So what changed? Not sure. Maybe the C1X solo wasn't fully broken in previously; maybe more revealing speakers, different music.
I'm not a big fan of proprietary links, but in this case, IMO, the difference should not be ignored if one has the requisite equipment.
 
Last edited:
What you are hearing is how the two different connection methods react to the cable. If using a top spec interconnect the differences will be subtle. If using a lesser cable the differences will be more apparent. ESLA being a current mode is agnostic to the cable, XLR being a voltage mode the cable makes a difference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top