I'll pile on and renominate the Playback Designs MPS-5. I got a chance to hear it vs. the Emm CDSA-SE last week and much preferred the PD. (See my review in the Review section if you'd like to follow that in detail). Unfortunately, my chance to compare it to a dCS stack got deferred due to scheduling conflict, but we'll eventually get around to it.
A dealer in Denver is trying to become a PD dealer and take one to RMAF. I hope that works out. (I can't bring you all over to my house).
Dave |
Newly, so when did you compare the Playback Designs to dCS? I'm trying to work that out, but a conflict has kept it from happening. Can you be a little more detailed in your description of the differences?
I've compared the PD to Emm's CDSA-SE single-box unit. I preferred the PD by a good margin. My detail review is available elsewhere on A'gon.
Dave |
Mikelavigne said:
"Mrtennis; a friend did recently take delivery of his Playback Designs, a few weeks later he sold his AMR-77. i believe his AMR was not the very latest version.
we discussed his opinion but as it is second hand info i don't think i should post it."
I heard the same thing about a month ago from a MPS-5 purchaser. It could be the same person that Mike speaks of, but all I have is an email address.
BTW, Playback Designs will be at the Rocky Mountain Audio Fest. My MPS-5 will be the source in the Sounding/Sumiko/Rowland high end room. They'll be driving the new Vienna Acoustics reference speaker, "The Music", with Rowland amplification. Stop by and bring your CDs. This appearance is unofficial, but approved by PD.
Dave |
Jb0194 said"
"I agree with Newly" and
"I needn't be held to some comparative standard, yours or any others', to express an opinion. "
Newly said:
"Without any doubt the best today available digital front is dCS Scarlatti, forget Payback designs, EMM labs, Zanden and others toys,"
Jb0194 is entitled to all the baseless claims he desires to make. I just think that he shouldn't be surprised if someone calls him on them.
Claiming that the Scarlatti is better than the Playback Designs, Emm and Zanden without actually comparing is not an "opinion", it's a bold faced (fill in the blank).
Dave |
Mrtennis, I haven't compared to the PD to the AMR, so I can't comment on that, but many of us would consider the "amr's flexibility for changes in tubes and sampling rate" to be negative. If changing a tube can improve the sound, then that implies a weakness in the designer's unit as distributed.
I think those two things (circuit design and sampling rate) are the designer's responsibility and would hope that I couldn't improve upon the designer's choices.
BTW, I never have figured out why people put tubes in DACs. Is there any technical advantage to doing this?
Dave |
Jonathan Tinn told me that PD would be at CES. I'll write him to see which venue.
Dave |
Mrtennis, I'm afraid that you confuse "improve the sound" with "change the sound". ;-)
Dave |
Mrtennis said:
"i think that the sound of any component can be improved by changing caps and resistors, based on my own subjective orientation of 'improve'"
If you believe that, then how can we talk?? You statement cannot be absolutely true, but then you throw in your "subjective orientation of 'improve'". That's a rediculous statement that I can't really respond to.
Dave |
Jb0194, your original vote for the dCS Scarlatti had no "might be" in it. You agreed with Newly, who was writing in absolute terms, specifically mentioning other brands that he had no doubt that the dCS was superior to. He's not reappeared here to verify that he'd actually listened to the others that he named. You now say as much now. So, your unequivical agreement with Newly must have indeed been baseless.
This is not a magazine where we're "paid" for our opinions and there's a code of ethics, but generally when we say something like, "this is better than that" then we will have some basis for making a statement like that. If you say, "I've heard people say this is better than that" then we'll know that you don't know and your passing along hearsay. That's ok. If you've heard the two pieces and you prefer one to the other, then it's entirely ok to say you like one better than the other and it can be really useful if you explain why. In your case, by virtue of agreeing with Newly, you indicated that you agreed that the dCS was better than the Playback Designs, when you hadn't heard the PD.
That's all I'm pointing out.
I can't understand your last paragraph. If you'd like me to try to answer it, would you rephrase it?
Dave |
Mrt, I'm not interested in defining "improve" to you. You started that line and I'm not going down that road. You think that any change is an improvement, I must conclude from you examples. That's your perogative and I'm glad that you made that clear.
Dave |
Jb0194, you responded to a phantom post on 8/31. Maybe that's the source of your confusion. If you equivicated your agreement with Newly, I've missed it. (I couldn't make sense of that response of yours because the subject post no longer exists, evidently.)
You can make almost any statements you want here so long as they're civil. If you want to be helpful to others you'll not use absolutes unless they're appropriate. Anyone reading this thread can easily evaluate you opinion.
So far as supporting dCS, there's nothing wrong with that, so long as you have no financial interest. If you do have a financial interest you should disclose it, IMHO, but you're not obligated to that standard. There's a reason that Reviewers, Dealers and Manufacturers disclose their status here. Enthusiasts are allowed to be just that, unbridled enthusiasts.
It's well know that I'm a Rowland, Playback Designs and Pro-ject enthusiast. If I make comparisons, I limit it to things that I've actually seen and heard. Since Newly's head is down, I don't think that is the case with him or her.
Dave |
