2. member-reviews
  3. 1212275915

Review: Playback Designs MPS-5 CD Player

Category: Digital

1st impressions of the Playback Designs MPS-5.

briefly; The MPS-5 plays redbook and SACD's; it can also be used as a DAC for a music server as well as as a transport. i do plan on getting into server based music and so i like that part. the MPS-5 is also set up so it's software is easily upgradable.

Playback Designs is a new company. this is their first product.

at 1:40pm PDT today the fedex driver pulled up and dropped off the box.

finally; after 5 weeks without.....I HAVE DIGITAL AGAIN.

mine is one of the first 2 units shipped, and the first to arrive. i had heard a prototype a few months back and made a decision to replace my EMM Labs SE Combo with this new product. i had not compared the my EMM Labs Signature directly to that prototype; but i did like some things i heard and made the change.

first; the packaging was perfect and easy to unpack; i was playing music in about 2 minutes after openning the box. the player itself is very handsome; fit and finish are impeccable, a beautiful aluminum case, brushed silver metal on top and black anodized on the bottom. the remote is similarly elegant, and feels very nice in your hand. large, easy to use buttons and it's back lit.

the EMM Labs never had this level of industrial design; but prior to that i owned the Linn CD-12 and before that the Levinson dac and transport. performance is my only criteria; but i also enjoy audio jewelry assuming it can deliver the sonic goods.

how does it sound?

my very first impression in the first 30 seconds was big and bold. the Playback Designs uses a transformer based power supply instead of the switching power supply of the EMM Labs SE Combo. i wonder if that is a factor here.

i must point out that my EMM Labs SE Combo was packed up and shipped to it's new owner in late April. so my aural memory of that is 5 weeks old. OTOH i owned EMM Labs for 5 years, and the SE for the last 2 years. so my sense of that is pretty good.

i'm hearing a sound that fills the soundstage to a greater degree, and the bass seems to have more authority.

beyond that initial impression; like any brand new digital player; the sound started off somewhat congested, sluggish and closed in. after about 45 minutes things started to open up a bit and i could hear farther into the soundstage. it's now been about 90 minutes of play and things are getting more interesting.

it's still somewhat closed in on top but i'm getting more lively micro-dynamics and a bit more transparency in the mids. the bass is getting cleaner and tighter, a few more hours and.......

i like where this is going.

anyway; i'll be breaking this baby in over the next week or so and will continue to offer impressions.

Associated gear
Click to view my Virtual System

Similar products
EMM Labs CDSD SE Transport, EMM Labs DAC6 SE
mikelavigne
dcstep
1,518 posts
 
Mike, I understand the advantage of a server or harddrive-based system is the lower error rate in reading a hard drive vs. an optical transport reading a CD or SACD. There's no advantage attributable to the DAC; therefore, like you, I'm very much looking foward to implementing a server solution that incorporates my MPS-5's DAC.

You might ask your son about one attribute that I seek, I've already mentioned it to Jonathon and Andreas, I want my server in another room from the two-channel system. I'd like an AppleTV-like device (without the technical limitations and Jobian control freak operation limitations) sitting right behind the MPS-5 to send the digital input into the DAC and system.

Dave
mikelavigne OP
2,143 posts
 
Dave,

my son and i have spoken about where the server should be. we have CAT-5 wired to both sides of my room in the barn as well as draft 802.11n WiFi in the barn and house. i also have a conduit from my listening room to the attic that my air line for my tt compressor runs thru. i could place the server directly above my room near my compressor and then run any special cable down to the MPS-5 (such as the ASEBU XLR which Andreas thinks might be ideal).

ideally; assuming no sonic penalty; i would have a 3 terabyte server in the house and just a tablet based control in my room in the barn. i am not personally familiar with the various interface choices and their limitations. which one's could handle hi-rez; who knows?

worst case; i would have a solid state memory hard drive/ fan-less power supply playback server sitting next to the MPS-5 in my room and download music from the 3-terabyte server into it as i need it. this would keep the interface as short as possible.

until we actually listen it is hard to say which approach will perform the best. unfortunately; my son's knowledge does not include any listening tests of network solutions.

until Andreas recommends a sound card and interface solution we are on hold.
guidocorona
4,298 posts
 
Mike, I am also curious to learn if -- at least in stratospheric systems such as yours -- a server has a chance of outperforming a top shelf drive. Raw error rate is not necessarily the underlying issue, as unhandled errors are very rare in both. Yet jitter elimination definitely may be a factor. Hard disk drives are optimized for timing synchronization at sector level, which is much coarser than the bitwise synchronization required for elimination of audible jitter. So the question is. . . Can jitter control/hardware/software bring the stream from a hard drive to the even smoothness of what is yielded by a traditional optically encoded worm drive? Or has the 'inherent' sonic superiority of hard drives been postulated a priori and perhaps a little oversold?

Only time will tell. . . Guido
mapman's avatar
mapman
21,835 posts
 
"Mike, I understand the advantage of a server or harddrive-based system is the lower error rate in reading a hard drive vs. an optical transport reading a CD or SACD"

Doesn't the content originate on CD and get read through optical drive prior to landing on the server in which case any data that would be lost during the optical read process is already lost before it hits the server drive. So in this case, how can reading from the server be any better?

"Hard disk drives are optimized for timing synchronization at sector level, which is much coarser than the bitwise synchronization required for elimination of audible jitter"

Don't most digital audio systems that read data from a storage device cache the data prior to use to isolate the playback from the performance bottlenecks of the native storage device, in this case the performance of the server hard disk drive? If true, then as long as the cache can be kept filled with the needed data before use, the performance of the storage device (optical, magnetic or otherwise) shouldn't matter. doesn't matter.

If I understand "jitter" correctly, this (as well as other types of distortion) could still be an issue regardless of caching and/or storage medium depending on how accurately the analog signal is assembled from the digital source by the DAC.
dcstep
1,518 posts
 
06-27-08: Mapman said:
""Mike, I understand the advantage of a server or harddrive-based system is the lower error rate in reading a hard drive vs. an optical transport reading a CD or SACD"

Doesn't the content originate on CD and get read through optical drive prior to landing on the server in which case any data that would be lost during the optical read process is already lost before it hits the server drive. So in this case, how can reading from the server be any better?"

My understanding is that in transfer the program re-reads the optical drive rather than "correcting" the error with a logarithm, except as a last resort. Obviously, you need a download program that checks for errors and re-reads, but I can't name a program for you.

Dave
More to discover