MPD3 user here and mine is dead quiet, connected to a Nagra 300i using Cardas Clear series cables.
If you turn it off and then on does the rustling remain? Is it coming from both channels? What source are you feeding to the MPD3? Computer or transport? Does the noise remain with the source turned off? What you are experiencing is not normal nor indicative. Have you checked with Playback Designs? I have never had an issue.
Good luck. |
A couple of other things to check. Check with your amp/preamp what the maximum input voltage allowed for the input you are utilizing. While I have not measured the output of the MPD3, my Nagra has 3 inputs that allow up to 2v while the 4th input allows up to 4v. I am connected to input 4. In other words the MPD3 may be a bit hot for your input as I am almost certain that if your amp/pre have a hard 2v ceiling then you will clip often, unless you have the volume from the computer mitigating it. Unlikely but a possibility of your problem. Make sure you are getting good power and properly isolating your components from one another, where appropriate. Good cabling between the pc and the dac is important as well.
Bhobba - no offense intended but since the MPD3 has no volume control it comes as no surprise that when you connected it directly to an amplifier that it probably did sound bad. If you were using your computer as the volume control then I am further convinced that the noise you describe is elswhere in your system. |
Sabai, I do not know Mr. Tinn nor do I have any affiliation other than as a customer of Playback Designs. I am aware of the lawsuit between Tinn and EMM from a number of years ago. For you to bring that up in this thread is patently unfair and has no relevance whatsoever in attempting to answer the original posters noise query. But since you brought it up, it is important to note that the matter was NOT resolved in EMM's favor. Each party to the lawsuit was granted relief....in other words, a functional tie.
Apparently, Tinn was distributing EMM in the US and was doing so on a handshake agreement. Koch left EMM to start Playback Designs and Tinn would be joining forces with Koch in the future. Evidently, EMM got mad and refused to pay Tinn, past, present or future. Some motions were granted in Tinn's favor, some in EMM's favor. If you hadn't recommended and AMR player (unsolicited I might add) I would think you to be an EMM fanboi!
Anyway back to the topic at hand, I do not believe that one can make a judgement on the noise/or lack thereof of a component given the above data in this thread. The MPD3 is a line level component NOT intended to be connected amp direct. To use the volume from your computer is the least effective qualitative means for volume control. Other dacs that have been metioned had on board volume controls. Did you test their noise level with their on board volumes set to maximum? Are you sure impedences were matched?
Not slamming anyone here but again, too many variables to make a judgement. Regards. |
Sabai, with all due respect you are mistaken. The case of Tinn vs EMM (please note it was Tinn suing EMM, not the other way).
" OPINION AND ORDER EMM's motion 149 for summary judgment against Tinn's breach of oral agreement claim is GRANTED. EMM's alternative motion for an order precluding Tinn from recovering damages for future profits and profits on sales not actually made is DENIED as moot. Tinn's motion 144 for partial summary judgment on liability is also DENIED as moot. However, the court will permit Tinn to proceed on a quantum meruit theory to recover the compensation, if any, EMM di d not pay to him for services and sales he performed for EMM's benefit during the period of their business relationship. Timm's motion for summary judgment against EMM's Lanham Act counterclaim is GRANTED as to the allegation of false advertising but DENIED as to the allegation of false association. Finally, Tinn's motion 159 to amend his complaint is DENIED as untimely. Signed on 2/27/09, by Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta. "
EMM recived a summary judgement on the first claim by Tinn due to Oregon law prohibiting, among other issues, a verbal contract of longer duration than one year. It was also apparent that they never agreed fully on the terms, thus, also rendering the idea that they ever had an agreement formally in doubt. The next two issues were found in EMM's favor because they were tied to the initial claim of breach of agreement, which were declared moot. Tinn was granted relief to receive the compensation due him.
Sebai, I don't know who you are or what bone you have to pick but you are mischaracterizing the content of their case, a case I am sure neither party wanted to pursue. In a nutshell, Tinn was asked to clean up the distribution mess for EMM, he did so. They never reached a final agreement (according to testimony) and yet Tinn continued to rep and distribute their products. It is obvious that EMM got very upset when Koch left EMM to start Playback Designs and EMM withheld payments to Tinn, to which Tinn was granted relief by the court.
Again, I have no afiliation to Tinn or Playback other than as a happy customer. Sebai, do you have any affiliation to EMM or anyone else involved in this case? The only thing of which I am certain presently about your background is that you are not an attorney nor do you play one on television. Regards. |
Sabai, I still don't understand why you ever introduced the court case into a discussion about possible noise from a DAC that you may or may not know a thing about? I guess you've just got alot of time on your hands.
As far as your original statement:
"I am a bit shocked to learn of this. But not entirely surprised because I read the legal proceedings between Jonathan Tinn and EMM on the Internet. The matter was decided in favor of EMM. You can Google the court documents if wish to read them. Let's put it this way -- I was not impressed by what I read about Jonathan Tinn."
After reading your last post you, very eloquently I must admit, validated that you materially misrepresented the outcome of the case. In simple English, the parties obviously had some sort of understanding with which to proceed or EMM would never have sent product. Obviously things stretched out over to exceed the timeframe of one year which rendered any verbal agreement moot. I believe any reasonable, UNBIASED person who takes the time time to read the case will reach the logical conclusion that there was some sort of verbal agreement reached. Unfortunately, in a case of "he said, she said" testimony, the court will always struggle to find fact in a two party verbal agreement without corroborating testimony to weigh opinion to one side or the other.
I must give you props though, you worked very hard on your writeup and further attempted to appear neutral albeit, failing on the neutrality test. Your condemnation of Mr. Tinn based solely on the fact that he was unable to prove each and every detail of a verbal agreement that would prove unenforceable in any event I find suspect. My own belief in this instance is that everything went off the tracks for Tinn and EMM when Koch left EMM to start Playback. I can imagine that Tinn would have been privy to Koch's plans and EMM would have known it.....and probably got very upset as things unfolded. Again, who really cares? EMM had to pay Tinn, Tinn couldn't prove the terms of a verbal agreement!
I will take you at your word that you have no relationship with EMM nor any bone to pick with Mr. Tinn. Your introduction of this topic to this thread however will lend doubt of your neutrality to the fair minded person. In the unlikely event that someone takes the time to read the case.....and then these lengthy posts, I certainly hope they have the good sense and objectivity to see through your mischaracterization of the case. |
Sabai, all I have ever intended to point out is the fact that in your initial post
you stated the following:
"The matter was decided in favor of EMM."
which was not completely accurate. That's what I was referring to by stating
that you mischaracterized the court's findings. Anyone who has seen a few
of these misunderstandings matriculate through the courts will likely agree
that this one was a tie. They both failed to memorialize their understanding
in writing and, as is usually the case when emotions run high, selective
memory kicks in.
I will reiterate however that I believe you have unfairly slammed Mr. Tinn,
which was probably unintentional on your part. Oh, and as far as spare
time goes, you are correct that I have alot of spare time on my hands
especially this time of year. I'm very fortunate to have accumulated several
months of vacation annually. Good luck with your well earned retirement. |
Sabai, good thoughts on retirement and I completely agree with you there.
As far as the court case, lets take a step back. Again, I dont really give alot of weight to the idea that there was no agreement. Lets use some common sense here....yes or no, would EMM send products....very expensive products, to someone with whom they had absolutely NO understanding? The answer there is of course not. I will yield that the agreement could have proved to be a moving target and the negotiations likely got away from both of them, especially in light of the fact that EMM's key designer left the company during this timeframe to form Playback Designs. I am certain this is probably when the Tinn/EMM relationship became poisoned. The loss of Andreas Koch by EMM is a terrible blow for EMM to deal with and the fact that Tinn was asked to team up to distribute Playback Designs was probably too much for EMM to swallow.
At the end of the day, I still dont understand your animosity toward Mr. Tinn when you have no horse in the race. The only reason I was aware of the case at all was while doing my due dilligence prior to purchasing from Mr. Tinn, I had my attorneys (a top LA law firm) do a background. They characterized the Tinn/EMM lawsuit as "nothing more than a verbal agreement that went over a cliff".
I have purchased 3 products from Mr. Tinn since 2010 and I could not be more thrilled with my purchasing decisions. He has been kind, engaging and professional. And finally, I am certain that if there had been a problem, he would have solved the problem in short order. You have sold your EMM and moved on to your next digital (AMR?) and I still enjoy my Playback Designs.....horses for courses. |
Whatever. We can agree to disagree.
I stand by my opinion that there is absolutely no way that EMM would have shipped product WITHOUT an agreement. I have no problem believing that and you have to admit that to be the truth! To deny that is to state that EMM would ship product to anyone!!! Not likely. |
