I have the MPD3 PB DAC and use it with a Lenovo Laptop and JR17 software. It is outstanding in my system...I use the Passlabs XP20 Pre and the X250 am playing thru a pair of Aerial Acoustics 10t's. I use a Sony XA9000es into the coax input of the MPD3 if I am in the mood to actually play a redbook disc and have the XP20 setup to play the Sony direct for SACD disc's if I wish to play them as well. It just sounds great...I am most inpressed with the redbook files played off the computer I must say even over the SACD DSD files as far as improvement over playing the discs themselves. In my system you can't go wrong with the PB MPD3 with an inexpensive laptop sending the USB data to it... |
Thanks for the reply.
It is now I'm using RCA cables. |
I have been experimenting a bit with mine and the noise issue. I have found you can hear a rustling sound quite distinctly while playing with one of my amps that has a very high bandwidth - 10mhz.
This is different to the intermittent issue I had previously which was literally like a radio station coming out of the speakers.
My suspicion is its to do with the lack of a filter on the output of the DAC and the very high bandwidth of this particular amp.
Thanks
Bill |
I remember thinking that the MPD3 I loaned had a fair bit of noise using RCA outputs but it was dead quiet on the XLR.
Are you using RCA? |
I think it's time to get back in the discussion of noise sel ', MPD3 ...... I was wondering if any of you who kindly poseddesse the dac, has tried if the noise actually .... I would like to know if there is a problem only my DAC ..... repeat the sound you hear with the DAC paused and raising the volume.
Sorry for my English.
Ciro |
Ghasley,
There are two things going on here. There is the legal decision that there was no verbal agreement. Then there is the non-legal situation where Mr. Tinn and Mr. Meitner had what actually turned out to be a misunderstanding -- not an understanding. Whatever transpired that enabled Mr. Meitner to ship product, it was nothing more than provisional -- a work in progress than never progressed to the stage of becoming a true agreement. Certainly, it did not constitute a mutual agreement recognized in law. There was no "meeting of minds" here, as the court recognized. |
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. |
Ghasley,
I have no animosity whatsoever against Mr. Tinn. I am looking at this from the point of view of an outsider who knows none of the parties and who might be doing due diligence before buying an expensive product.
Your lawyer may have characterized the lawsuit as "nothing more than a verbal agreement that went over a cliff", but the fact is the court found there was, in fact, no verbal agreement. You stated this fact here: "Again, I dont really give alot of weight to the idea that there was no agreement."
I must say that I find it curious that you do not give "a lot of weight" to the very matter that was at the center of the lawsuit -- and that was decided in favor of EMM. Mr. Tinn's meandering around various sets of self-created facts was the one thing about this lawsuit that I found very disconcerting. He was shown in the court records to have a propensity for making up different sets of facts to suit his purposes.
The fact that you were thrilled with the service you received from Mr. Tinn speaks very well of him in your case. |
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. |
FWIW, I have successfully gotten my MPS5 registered and have gotten access to the drivers. |
Ghasley,
You stated, "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."
You are correct here. My statement was not accurate on all points. But a close reading of the court documents shows that all major issues were decided in favor of EMM. Mr. Tinn was to receive full compensation for services rendered if that compensation had not yet been received by him.
Regarding your statement that I mischaracterized the court's findings, may I refresh your memory about the court record regarding the lack of any oral agreement, let alone any written agreement, between Mr. Tinn and EMM:
"As the proponent of the agreement, Tinn has not met his burden of demonstrating that sufficient facts exist upon which reasonable jurors could find clear and unequivocal proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, that an oral contract existed. Tinn maintains that the parties entered into a binding oral agreement in October 2005, but his own testimony shows they could not have."
Retirement is good, thanks -- because I am productively busy. Retirement can be the death knell for folks who put their feet up and think that they have arrived. You arrive when the Good Lord decides it is your time. Until then, keep productive and you'll do fine. |
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. |
Ghasley,
As a coda to my earlier remarks, regarding your statement: "In simple English, the parties obviously had some sort of understanding with which to proceed or EMM would never have sent product."
May I refer you to this statement in the court documents:
"As the proponent of the agreement, Tinn has not met his burden of demonstrating that sufficient facts exist upon which reasonable jurors could find clear and unequivocal proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, that an oral contract existed. Tinn maintains that the parties entered into a binding oral agreement in October 2005, but his own testimony shows they could not have." |
Ghasley,
As far as I am aware, being of retirement age and having time on one's hands is not yet an indictable offense. It seems, by your lengthy rebuttals, that you have as much time on your hands as I have on mine.
You stated, "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." With all due respect, I validated nothing of the sort. The issue is not that the two parties had "some sort of understanding". The issue is precisely what that understanding was and if it constituted the basis in law for the claims made by Mr Tinn.
The court clearly decided Mr. Tinn's statements regarding the verbal understanding between himself and EMM did not constitute the basis in law for Mr. Tinn's claims, that Mr. Tinn was perpetually trying to change the "facts" he wished the court to consider as the basis for his suit, and that he could not prove his claims because no matter what version of the facts he presented they did not constitute proof in law. In fact, the court found that a lot of what was presented by Mr. Tinn were "sham facts". In the end, the court essentially threw that part of Mr. Tinn's suit out the window.
Further, you stated "Your introduction of this topic to this thread however will lend doubt of your neutrality to the fair minded person." Neutrality? Fair-minded person? The court was not neutral in its fair-minded judgment against Mr. Tinn. In fact, its judgment was not neutral at all. Its judgment was crystal clear -- that Mr. Tinn had attempted to use smoke and mirrors to build a case against EMM in order to win a judgment against EMM. Further, the court's judgment was that Mr. Tinn had misrepresented many of the facts of the case and that he had furthermore misrepresented his relationship with EMM to customers.
In closing, you have stated that I have mischaracterized the case. A close reading of the case shows that I have done nothing of the sort. A close reading of the case shows I have characterized it exactly as the court did. It is you who have tried to turn the court's judgment in favor of Mr. Tinn -- where the court clearly did not do so.
Regarding your casting aspersions on my reasons for posting this information here, if you would care to contact Mr. Tinn or Mr. Meitner and ask them if they have ever heard of my name their responses will be in the negative. If you ask anyone at their companies if they have ever heard of my name the only person who may answer in the affirmative is the person who processed my repair at EMM.
I feel it is time to put this matter to bed and let the thread resume its intended direction. |
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. |
Ghasley,
I have no connection with any audio company -- except as a customer. I have no bones to pick with either party here. In fact, the only issue I have ever had with either part is when I had a repair issue with an EMM product. I had it repaired at my own expense before selling it off.
I understand the circumstances of the Tinn vs EMM lawsuit. I have read the court documents from cover to cover.
With all due respect, the court documents show I am not wrong at all. You stated "The case of Tinn vs EMM (please note it was Tinn suing EMM, not the other way)." This is correct, but the fact that Mr. Tinn brought the suit is, ipso facto, proof of nothing at all, per se. In fact, the facts elucidated in the court documents show that essential parts of the judgment actually went against Mr. Tinn. In other words, Mr. Tinn was not able to prove his own claims. This is clearly delineated by the court documents.
I quote from the court documents: "As the proponent of the agreement, Tinn has not met his burden of demonstrating that sufficient facts exist upon which reasonable jurors could find clear and unequivocal proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, that an oral contract existed. Tinn maintains that the parties entered into a binding oral agreement in October 2005, but his own testimony shows they could not have." Mr. Tinn's statements can only be characterized as totally contradictory and confusing -- which is how the court found them.
Please note this paragraph in the court documents:
"As the above discrepancies illustrate, Tinn cannot meet his burden on summary judgment. The court's conclusion in Mukai Living Trust v. Lopez, 199 Or. App. 341, 111 P.3d 1150 (2005) applies with equal force here: "In the present case, nothing in the summary judgment record amounts to evidence from which a rational juror could find that the parties entered into an agreement with terms 'so precise that neither could reasonably misunderstand them.'" Id. at 345 (citation omitted). In this case, no rational juror could find a meeting of the minds on the terms of the alleged oral contract because Tinn himself has not been of one mind about what those terms were. Furthermore, Tinn testified that both he and EMM did not intend to be bound to any agreement without a written contract; given that unrefuted testimony, a rational juror could not find that the parties reached an oral agreement."
All of this cannot reflect well on Mr. Tinn as you will know by reading the details in the court documents. They point out not only to the facts not supporting material claims made by Mr. Tinn, they also point out that Mr. Tinn's memory is woefully deficient as to the major facts in the case. This is clearly shown in this statement in the court documents:
"Thus, Tinn's conflicting testimony about the oral contract's terms is not a basis upon which he may create a question of fact to survive summary judgment." And "Both parties acknowledge the rule that a litigant cannot create a genuine issue of material fact by contradicting prior sworn without explanation" -- which is exactly what the court documents show Mr. Tinn has tried to do in this case.
Further, the court documents state: "This rule does not extend to cases "in which a contradictory affidavit is introduced to explain portions of earlier deposition testimony. Rather, [the rule is] concerned with 'sham' testimony that flatly contradicts earlier testimony in an attempt to 'create' an issue offact and avoid summary judgment." Kennedy, 952 F.2d at 267. On summary judgment, it is for the district court to determine whether the contradictory testimony was given in an honest effort to clarify, or was an intentional alteration designed to create a genuine issue of material fact." Please note the court's reference to " ...'sham' testimony".
Further, the court documents state ""Here, Tinn's testimony presented two diverging sets of contract terms. Important to the instant issue, he does not explain the many material discrepancies between his June 2008 deposition description ofthe contract terms and his May 2008 interrogatory description of those terms. Nor has Tinn explained the contradiction between these conflicting accounts of an oral agreement and his unequivocal deposition testimony ... statements which Tinn did not refute at the time and did not refute on summary judgment."
Further, the court refers to Mr. Tinn intentionally misrepresenting his association with EMM. I quote from the court documents: "Taken together, the continued references to EMM on Tinn's websites, Tinn's failure to respond to potential customers' inquiries, his failure to clarify his relationship with EMM, and his affirmative attempts to steer potential EMM customers to his own product line create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Tinn falsely associated himself with EMM's mark, in commerce, such as to cause confusion about his affiliation with EMM. Therefore, summary judgment on this claim is inappropriate and Tinn's motion is denied."
In the end, what Mr. Tinn ended up with, according to the conclusion of the case, was the following: " ... the court will permit Tinn to proceed on a quantum meruit theory to recover the compensation, if any, EMM did not pay to him for the services and sales he performed for EMM's benefit during the period of their business relationship."
Mr. Tinn was awarded payment for services rendered that may not already have been paid to him. Other than receiving payment for services rendered, Mr. Tinn was clearly not the victor on the major legal points of this case.
Here is the link to those court documents for those who may be interested in reading them:
http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/oregon/ordce/3:2007cv00963/84055/181/0.pdf?1270846062
I believe the points I have made are well founded in fact based on the court record. The relevance to this thread? Would you have confidence in purchasing an expensive audio product from someone who exhibited these characteristics shown in these court records? |
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. |
Actually, Jonathan was always very responsive on emails.
It was the support email that I usually got no response from but that was because I didn't furnish my invoice when I registered.
Hopefully that's sorted now.
I have the EMM Labs XDS1 and the Playback MPS5 and I'd say neither were particularly noisy. I've had both in the same room. In fact the MPS5 (now in my study) is barely 3 feet away from me and spinning away without calling attention to itself. I think my CD Pro2 based Ayon sounds noisier.
I do agree the top of the line Esoteric transports used in the K01 (and I think the newest multi box dCS) are a marvel but there's something right about Playback and EMM's DSD DAC implementation that I like and the previous implementations on Esoteric's Cirrus and other off the shelf DAC chips just didn't gel with me. I think the K01's AKM DAC seems to be much better but I can't bring myself to buy a 25k player that uses off the shelf DAC chip. |
Ghasley,
With all due respect, I believe most of what came out of the case was in favor of EMM. Please note that I stated "I was not impressed by what I read about Jonathan Tinn." If you read the court documents you may understand why. I believe this is relevant here because it speaks to character and may help us to understand the broader context regarding poor customer service at Playback Designs. |
Add another disappointed PD customer. Used to own the MPS5 and transport was noisy as hell.
To their credit, they did inspect it by an engineer in Germany (twice with no resolution), but for me the MPS5 was a failed design: the outer casing is way too thin and flaky for it to manage the heavy and noisy Esoteric transport. Unless you put it away in an airtight closet or 20m away from your listening position, it will drive anyone nuts.
Had a K01 and noisy transport was much better isolated and i couldnt complain.
AMR service is stellar and their machines are one of the best build in the business. Sound is also impressive, though no DSD support for the moment. |
Hi Guys
Although we are moving away from the original post I feel I must point out the post I made was repeated in essence on another forum and it sent events in train such that I have had correspondence with both Jonathan and the Australian distributor.
I am now aware there were factors involved in my experience that fully explain it and I am now a fully satisfied customer. I would indeed buy another PD product now. No need to divulge what they were but what happened was reasonable in light of that information.
Thanks
Bill |
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. |
Bhobba,
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.
Before I purchased my AMR DP-777 I was thinking seriously about the Playback Designs MPD-3. I'm glad I didn't make the move in that direction. I have had nothing but the very best relations with the folks at AMR. I can recommend their DP-77 very highly -- as well as their stellar service. |
Hi Chasely
No offense taken.
However it does come as a surprise to me direct connecting the DAC produces as much noise as it does. Every other DAC I have ever owned did not produce this level of noise - and I have owned a lot. And this is the only DAC that produced anywhere near this level of noise to the point where direct connecting and using the volume control in the computer was a degradation. Some DAC's sound better direct connected - others sound better with a pre-amp but this is the only DAC that sounded better with a pre-amp because of noise.
I am glad the OP got a reply. I was just chatting to a friend who owns an MPD5 yesterday and like me he had a lot of problems getting even a reply from Playback Designs - but did point out he finally managed to get a response by trying a different email.
Thanks
Bill |
Grz you all for the answers.
So today Mr. Andreas Koch replied to me ... and was really very kind.
This and a part of the answer.
Buona sera Signor Scala,
My apologies for the poor response earlier on your question. Here is what is going on in our converters:
Every D/A converter requires an analog low-pass filter at its output. This is to get rid of high frequency noise that is not correlated with the music signal. There are many different ways for how to design this filter. Most manufacturer make this filter very steep or sharp to minimize the remaining noise and to achieve best measurements. However, there is a price to be paid: the steeper this filter is, the more the sonic performance (i.e. musicality) is impacted.
Since the noise is not correlated to the music signal, it is like listening to music with your window open when you might hear a little the wind outside. Uncorrelated noise does not distract from listening. Therefore, we have designed our filter not to minimize this noise, but rather to optimize the sonic performance with the lowest possible noise and without impacting the listening experience. So now if you stop playing music and turn the volume up you can hear more noise with our converter than with others. That is normal and was designed to optimize the sonic performance.
thank you again Mr. Andreas Koch me he replied in person. |
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. |
I own an MPD3 and have occasionally noticed the problem you mentioned but only very intermittently - simply restarting the Mac fixes it.
To my ears this is a very noisy DAC anyway. I usually direct connect DAC's but this DAC is so noisy I found it needs a pre-amp to reduce the noise - using a pre-amp the noise is OK but without it is a bit annoying.
I wouldn't bother contacting Playback Designs. They provide the worse after sales service of any company I have ever come across. I lent my DAC to a friend who had trouble downloading drivers - it turned out there was a problem with the website but we didn't know that at the time. My friend contacted the Australian distributor. What was the reply - why do you want the drivers - is this your DAC - a litany of irrelevant questions and no answer - my friend felt like he was getting the third degree simply for wanting to listen to the DAC. Rather than simply giving the information they even contacted an acquaintance of both of us. My friend is well known in the industry here in Aus and they knew he was associated with our mutual acquaintance - the fact he had nothing to do with me lending it was irrelevant as far as they were concerned - it was more important to give both of them the third degree about why they wanted to get the drivers - pathetic. When I found out about it I personally contacted Playback Designs - not even a reply. The issue with the site was fixed in a week but that was too late for my friend who never was able hear the DAC. Considering the price of the product IMHO this is disgraceful and I will never get another product from this mob again.
Thanks
Bill |
thanks Ghasley
1 with the mac on the noise is always present.
2 is comes from both channels.
3 dac if I turn off the noise is not present
4 I am trying to contact the playback, but for the moment no answer.
Ciro |
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. |
