Playback Designs MPS-5 - Measerments v. Sound


For all who are curios to read Michael Fremer`s comment
on one of the most controversial reviews in Stereophile (Feb 2010) concerning PD MPS-5 cd player, in which the ultimate question rises again - Can we actually measure perceived sound ?

"Thanks for writing. I would appreciate it if you'd post my response on Audiogon.

It's interesting that you say "it's time to rethink measurement methods" because John Atkinson just took the player back with him to perform some new ones on that player.

It's important to understand that the designer of that player has been at the forefront of DSD technology almost from its inception. Read the bio notes on the Playback website and/or in my review (which was written of course before I had any idea how the player would measure).

Andreas Koch knows what he is doing! That player's measurements are not the result of a botched effort or because he is unable to design a player that will measure as "perfectly" as is expected in conventional terms. Just as it's fairly easy these days to design a speaker that measures "flat" on-axis. But that is hardly the end all and be all of good speaker design!

Atkinson recently met up with Mr. Koch at an event and they had a long discussion about the measurements and that is why JA is revisiting them. The players measures as it does purposely according to Mr. Koch.

Believe me about one thing: you will not hear "noise" as such from that player!

You also understand that there are anti-SACD advocates out there who claim that SACD is not a high fidelity medium! Those include Dr. Stanley Lipschitz, in who I distrust all the time, but he's got the measurements to "prove" his case.

I can "prove" to you that LP playback measures way worse than CD playback but the listening is what counts to me. We don't measure everything. Our brains are far more sensitive than any measurement yet devised. Yes, we also can be fooled but we are also excellent receptors.

JA admitted to me that he's not quite sure what Mr. Koch was getting at in their discussion but that he's open to learning and understanding. JA understands that Mr. Koch is well aware of what he's doing in that design and perhaps one day we'll all understand what he's doing and why what he's done makes that player sound so good.

I suggest you listen to it. Or measure it. If you measure it you may reject it, but if you listen, you might find it's the player you want to own....

-Michael "
papaya

Showing 6 responses by guidocorona

I had the opportunity of listening at some length to a very well broken in MPS-5 2 years ago in Denver on a few different systems. The player belongs to DCSTEP. The device is in fact remarkable for its resolution and musicality. The only situation where I heard MPS-5 at a slight disadvantage was when it was matched against an Esoteric P-03/D-03/G-03 stack. Yet, in this particular case, some imperfect cabling matches rendered the comparison of the 2 front end systems of doubtful value. Mayhaps sometimes I'll be able to listen to an MPS-5 in my own system. G.
If Esoteric gear like X-01 D2 or P-03/D-03/G-03 combo does not have over 1,000 hours on it, do not bother listening to it, it is rather painful to behold. Once it is broken in, I personally adore it. Whether of course this means that I have no musical taste, is entirely a plausible hypothesis from some point of view.
As usual, I'll take the minority view. I agree that recorded and live are inherently different, and that attempting to reconcile the 2 forms of music amounts to a futile enterprise. . . as for recorded music being inherently less intense. . . it truly depends. I have heard plenty of examples corroborating or disproving the assertion in question. I prefer to suggest that recordings are a form of hyper reality, which requires a certain amount of 'congruence' with physical performances to be satisfying. . . but for the time being I deliberately leave the meaning of 'congruence' free to float. G.
Dave, the ICs I provided were Audioquest Sky. In the end, we simply did not have enough ICs and PCs of the same brand/model to make the testing environment truly uniform and meaningful. While I did prefer the Esoteric stack, this was with a full triple stack with external clock, not just P-03/D03. Furthermore, I really do not remember if we were using the G-03 clock on the MPS-5. And of course, the fact that I prefer one solution over another, simply points to a purely personal preference, and is no indication of one device being 'better' than another. G.
Kops, Esoteric D-03 can be upgraded. I believe that X-01 series and below cannot be upgraded, except for SA-60 that already has USB built in. G.
Thank you Bill, for some reasons I keep confusing Esoteric SA-60 with SA-50. . . suspect it's age. . . will only get worse (grins!) G.