Once set up, the DV-50 performed its playback duties flawlessly. Although its remote has enough heft to be used as a weapon, it feels comfortable in the hand, and its control layout is logical and easy to grasp. The black leather covering on the back is a nice touch, but I'd trade that bit of luxury for illuminated keys and an On/Off button.

Esoteric Audio
Stereophile, our sister publication, reviewed the DV-50 in August 2003. Paul Bolin spent most of his review scrutinizing the DV-50's 2-channel audio performance. At my place, the DV-50 spent most of its time with its 5.1-channel analog inputs hooked up. But I did briefly compare the DV-50's "superior" 2-channel RCA outputs to its regular ones. If you use 2-channel analog outputs, you must use the "superior" pair. They sounded noticeably better. The standard 2-channel outputs had a slight mechanical edge, were less harmonically refined, and lacked a bit of 3-dimensionality. Naturally, this made me wonder if the 5.1 analog outputs were as good as the "superior" 2-channel outputs. I learned from the folks at Esoteric that the "superior quality" outputs come from a dual Burr-Brown DAC system, which gives the outputs the improved sound I noticed.

With 2-channel SACD material, the answer was no. On Glenn Gould's 1981 recording of J.S. Bach's Goldberg Variations (Sony Classical SS 37779), his piano had more resonance and dimensionality, and slightly less harshness during fortissimo passages, through the "superior" 2-channel outputs. On Miles Davis's Miles Smiles (Columbia/Legacy CS 65682), Davis's trum-pet had a bit more depth of tone through the "superior" outputs, and each instrument in his band had better dimensionality and definition. If you want to hear the DV-50 at its best with 2-channel SACD, DVD-A, and CD titles, hook up the "superior" analog outputs to your AV processor's direct or pass-through inputs. This may be a problem if you also want to use the 5.1-channel outputs for multichannel DVD-Audio and SACD. Many of today's pre-pros offer only one set of inputs with a digital-processing-free pass-through: the 5.1-channel analog bypass connections.

Before checking out the DV-50's video side, I compared the "superior" 2-channel outputs to the Lexicon RT-10's 2-channel outs (the Lexicon has only one kind of analog out) using the only 2-channel SACD that I have in multiple copies: Mark Levinson Live Recordings at Red Rose Music (Red Rose RRM01). Again, the DV-50's "superior" analog outs earned their description. The RT-10's analog outs were ever so slightly less musical and dimensional than the DV-50's, which also produced a bit more in the way of dynamic contrasts between the softest and loudest musical passages.

For my final test of the DV-50's analog-output sound, I pitted the TEAC's standard 2-channel analog outputs against the Lexicon RT-10's. Once the two machines' output levels had been precisely matched, I could hear no difference between them. Regardless of the source, they sounded identical in harmonic timbre, dynamic range, lateral image size, and dimensionality. This was also the case with multichannel music from the 5.1-channel outputs on both players, apart from the inherent sonic benefits of DVD-Audio and SACD.

Next, I compared the DV-50's coaxial digital output with the Lexicon RT-10's. To keep things simple, I listened to both players with 2-channel material in 2-channel mode sans any DSP processing, apart from D/A conversion on my Lexicon MC-12 pre-pro. For a source, I used Begoa Olavide's most excellent Mudejar (CD, M•A Recordings M042A), featuring Olavide on psaltery and voice. The differences between the two players were microscopic. The DV-50 had infinitesimally greater re-creation of depth and low-level resolution; notes seemed to tail off with greater delicacy through the TEAC. Dynamics, harmonic balance, image size, and bass impact were identical from both machines.

For a last—and unfair—audio test, I pitted the DV-50's coaxial digital output against the RT-10's AES/EBU digital output. The differences between the two were not subtle. Through the RT-10's AES/EBU output, the soundstage was larger and more 3-dimensional, and the RT-10's more natural harmonic balance made the DV-50 sound a bit thin in comparison. Since I used the Lexicon MC-12 preamp-processor for these tests, there may have been some synergistic mating between the two Lexicon units that could account for some of the RT-10's superiority. Still, for 2-channel CDs in my system, when hooked up through its EAS/EBU digital outputs, the RT-10 ruled.

Esoteric Video
Before the days of projectors and flat-panel displays with built-in scalers, it was very important for a premium DVD player to produce a top-quality 480p component-video signal. Now I find that, with rare exceptions, most of the new microdisplay projectors I've seen produce a better image when fed 480i than 480p. Still, for those buyers who may need it, it's obviously important that a progressive-scan player produce a decent 480p picture.

I connected the DV-50 to my Sim2 Millennium 800 CRT projector using the component-video connection for my 480p video tests, and 480i signals were routed through the Faroudja NR digital video processor, configured for 720p output. Although its 480p output didn't match the Faroudja at 720p, by and large the DV-50 offered a first-class picture. Unlike most players, which cut off some of the image, the DV-50 produced no pixel cutoff whatsoever. On every side, the AVIA test disc's pixel-count frame was revealed to its outermost edges. The DV-50's internal motion-correction circuits were also superb, producing only minute amounts of sparkle and other artifacts during Video Essentials' "Montage of Images." On the stadium scene, where the camera does a slow pan across the seats, only the blue row at the top showed any signs of motion problems.

The DV-50's color palette was as neutral as any DVD players I've seen. Its Y/C delay was also spot-on. Overall, I'd have to say its picture was equal to, and perhaps ever so slightly better than, the Lexicon RT-10's. While the RT-10 does have the advantage of more accessible fine-tuning adjustments, I could tweak the DV-50 to look just as good in every respect. Both players could squeeze every last bit of quality from the DVD format. Even so, their 480p outputs will always have some motion and stair-step artifacts, especially on difficult material such as the waving American flag on Video Essentials.

When connected to a first-rate scaler such as the Faroudja NR, the DV-50's picture was limited primarily by the transfer quality of the DVD being played. On especially good material, the picture looked almost as fine as a mid-quality high-definition source. (HD sources vary wildly, depending on their compression rate. On DirecTV, some HD material actually looks worse than what you see from a good DVD, while the best material—usually sports—far outdistances any DVD.)

Esoteric Opinions
It's easy to see how the TEAC Esoteric DV-50 could inspire acquisitive lust. It's visually stunning and beautifully made, and it comes as close to being electronic jewelry as any component I've reviewed. But is that enough to justify a purchase?

Based solely on the DV-50's audio performance using its "superior-quality" 2-channel analog outputs, I can understand why fans of 2-channel sound would praise the DV-50 to the heavens while reaching for their checkbooks. It's the least mechanical, most natural-sounding universal player I've ever heard. But if you use a DV-50 in a home theater, where its principal applications will be for multichannel audio and video reproduction using digital connections, the superiority of those 2-channel analog outputs won't mean much. Judged as a home-theater player, the DV-50 is a superbly crafted product whose audio and video performance are on a par with, but not markedly superior to, those of the Lexicon RT-10, which costs $2000 less.

And therein lies the rub. If you listen mostly to 2-channel music without digital signal processing, the Esoteric DV-50 should be the universal player of your dreams, and worth every cent of $5500. For everyone else, the DV-50's allure may be less compelling.