Playback Designs MPD3 Audition

I am the Bill mentioned in the post above.

First the MPD-3 is a good DAC - make no mistake about it.

But a number of people including myself have now heard it compared to another DAC I have - a level 2 PDX. Every single person preferred the PDX at 44.1. When upsampled the PD responded very well to it - even more than the PDX which can only go to 96K. Upsampled to 384K it did sound very good but while it was a lot closer the PDX still had the edge - it simply has more 'life'.

I have not tried it with DSD which I have been told is better again and it may topple the PDX that way - I will need to check it out.

Thanks
Bill

Hi Zugusland

What I am referring to is the PDX Level 2 that costs about 4.5K depending on options. Lenehan Audio is basically a small outfit here in Aus and doesn't have much of a retail presence preferring to sell direct which keeps prices lower. In the US Swap Meet Audio handles their stuff:
http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=96253.0

At 44.1 the PDX easily outperformed it but when upsampled it was closer - but the PDX was still better.

This was not just my view - here is what another person said:

'Yep, the MPD-3 most definitely has a smooth sound (one listener used the term "lifeless") when fed straight 16/44.1 audio via USB. Kind of like NOS without the schweppervessence. A very clean and composed sound. With the right kind of music it'd be a most relaxing experience, with the wrong kind you probably "can't get no satisfaction".

And yep, it changes a lot with upsampling. I took it all the way to 352.8kHz (8 x 44.1) with both CoreAudio and Izotope SRCs in Audirvana Plus 1.3.5. The top end gained in clarity and sparkle, the bottom end in stomp and bite. Sounded pretty decent. The CPU load was pretty severe, though, and playback wasn't entirely seamless.

Then I switched back to the PDX (Duelund output caps but cheap tubes) and 16/44.1, and I'm sorry to say it was game over for the Playback Designs within a few seconds. Depth, texture, detail, colour and slam. Like when photographs get digitally enhanced by somebody who knows what they're doing without going over the top. More accurate? Who knows, but on the incredibly un-coloured speakers and amps these DACs were partnered with, the result was far more pleasing with the PDX.'

The amps were Mac 501's and the speakers were Lenehan ML2's which you probably don't know in the US but they are indeed extremely uncolored with stuff like being lined with steel and using a specially designed stand each of which weigh 53kg - as the same person that wrote the above expressed it 'they sounded like they were bolted to a granite mountain'. I know Doggie likes them because he got a pair.

I do agree in part with what Doggie said regarding valves- but only in part. We heard a NAD 390DD - a direct digital amp - and it was actually fairly close to the PDX and Mac 501's which makes me think more is going on here than valve euphonics.

If you hunt around on the internet you will find all sorts of comparisons with all sorts of outcomes. For example check out:
http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f6-dac-digital-analog-conversion/look-what-wife-bought-me-my-birthday%85-part-2-a-11847/#post154528

The bottom line is before forking out for a DAC in the price range of the PD compare it to as much other stuff in that range as you can get a hold of in your system.

I would also suggest getting your hands on a NAD 390DD and see what you think - it impressed the bejesus out of every that has heard it and IMHO is up there with the PD and MAC501's - in fact some thought it was better.

Thanks
Bill

Hi Zugisland

Yes indeed the MPD 3 does internal up-sampling and when I said I was up-sampling it I meant the software player (in this case Audirvana) was doing the up-sampling. Why would it sound different than its internal up-sampling? - different up-sampling algorithms perhaps and I have also read jitter is improved if you feed a DAC at a higher sampling rate. Exactly why it sounds better I don't think anyone knows for sure but sound better it does - it has been verified by quite a few people that heard it.

Like I said when reading these comparisons you will find different results depending on preferences and system synergies - all such things mean is if a DAC that comes out on top it might be worthwhile seeking it out and listening to it. But of course auditioning has to stop somewhere and if you feel you have done enough then by all means stop your search and get the DAC you like best.

Thanks
Bill

Hi Johnathan

I have used up-sampling on many DAC's and fully appreciate its effects. In every case I can recall software upsampling sounded better - some benefiting more than others. For some reason the PD is one of the DAC's it made a big difference with.

I am not the only one to hear it with your DAC eg here is what one person posted:

'And yep, it changes a lot with upsampling. I took it all the way to 352.8kHz (8 x 44.1) with both CoreAudio and Izotope SRCs in Audirvana Plus 1.3.5. The top end gained in clarity and sparkle, the bottom end in stomp and bite. Sounded pretty decent.'

Is your view based on listening tests or a theoretical analysis?

Thanks
Bill

Hi Agsain Johnathon

It was a Mac-Mini using Audirvana Plus direct connected to Mac 501's into Lenehan ML3 Reference. You quite possibly know of the MAC's but probably not of the speakers. They are lined with steel to reduce resonances and use nothing but Duelund VSF Copper capacitors in the crossover. Each speaker is individually hand tuned for the best frequency response. They are ultra accurate, ultra revealing and are the fastest sounding thing I have ever heard - they for example blow B&W 802D's out of the water (not hard - I have seen the frequency response of those - without going into the details YUK). I am biased though because they are the speakers I have.

As I said everyone who has heard it noticed the same thing - it benefited greatly from up-sampling.

I am having someone over tomorrow to check out my Off-Ramp and if we get some time may be able to do the test again with a fresh set of ears.

Thanks
Bill

Just had a guy that over who bought his upgraded and modded Spectron amp. I actually judge it better than Mac 501's. We mucked around with a number of DAC's including the Playback Designs. We played it natively and 384kz upsampled - sorry upsampled was easily and clearly better - both of us heard it.

Both the PDX and the DAC section of the NAD C390DD was also tried. Again it was felt they were both better - the PD was very relaxed and polite - we both thought we can easily understand why some may really like it - if you want to relax into the music this sound could suit - but for both of us it really wasn't our cup of tea.

Anyway in that vein I decided to give a tube amp a go, so my Trafomatic Experience Two was popped into the system. Not sure if it really synergises any better - certainly the midrange magic of the Traf is there - its quite possibly has the best midrange of any amp out there - certainly the best midrange I have ever heard - and the PD for sure 100% exploits that - really nice. But again it sounds slow and lacking in life.

Look guys I paid quite a bit for this DAC and I wish I could get more enthused about it but its not really doing it for me. I think I need try it with some DSD.

Thanks
Bill