Playback Designs MPS-5 CD/SACD Player


Category: Digital

I recently added the Playback Designs MPS-CD/SACD player to my system and now that I've got some hours on it I thought I'd share my impressions.

First, realize that I don't have any references in the same price band as the PD, so the comparison will be to a grossly different universal player (a modded Pioneer Elite DV-58AV with a Superclock 4 and beefed up I/O stages). The Pioneer was actually pretty decent with SACD, but I longed for much more with redbook CD. I found myself listening to lots of vinyl or listening to SACDs and DVD-As.

There are now two or three reviews out about the MPS-5, most notably Mike Lavignes, supplemented by an excellent addendum by Ted Smith. David Robinson is working on a detailed review, but gave a preliminary thumbs up.

Well, I listened and listened and went back and forth from the Pioneer to the Playback Designs. The PD was clearly superior, but how to describe it was my issue, other than use words like bigger air and imaging.

All became crystal clear when I ABd using Enrico Rava (trumpet) and Stefano Bollani's (piano) latest CD "The Third Man". (BTW, this is a fantastic, etherial, jazz CD. Rava is one of the worlds great jazz trumpeters IMHO). If the pictures on the CD cover and insert are accurate, this is recorded in a live studio with hardwood floor and just a couple of mics. One mic is stuck right in the piano, with the lid open and the other is stationed in front of Rava, sitting about five-feet beyond the foot of the piano.

The first cut, "Estate", starts with just piano. I think a touch of reverb is added because of the very close proximity of the mic to the strings. With the MPS-5 the image of the piano stretches from about three-feet inside my right speaker to two-feet outside. (That reverb might actually be very light "flange" effect or "chorus", stetching the image so far). That image goes from my floor to a foot or two above the right speaker, but it's focal point is about six-inches inside the speaker about three-feet off the floor.

In contrast, the Pioneer doesn't go outside the speaker at all and stops about a foot from the floor and at the top of the speaker. I'd matched levels, but I tried to expand the Pioneer's image by turning up the volume, but no go, it just got louder, not bigger and "fuller".

Let's talk about Rava's trumpet image. The engineer has placed him to the left of center, but not out at the speaker. His mic is about four feet from the floor in the picture and he's sitting casually and playing. His mic is where you hear the atmosphere of the room, with both direct and reflected trumpet sound coming through, stretching from the piano edge to the left speaker, with a real strong focal point about four feet high and 30-degrees to the left of center. Once again, the Pioneer nails the focal point of the trumpet. You can hear the room, but it's much less obvious.

Didn't I say "fuller" earlier? Let me talk about it more. With that piano intro that I mentioned earlier, there's an incredibly rich and complex set of overtones, strongest at the piano's focal point, but showering the surrounding area with a overtones that decrease in richness as you move away from the focal point. Unfortunately the Pioneer is lacking the best overtones. The piano sounds "clangy" and thin in comparison. With the MPS-5 it sounds like there's more bass, but there's also way more high overtones. It's not all steel sound, but you hear the wood sound clearly.

The trumpet gains the same luxurious coating of overtones, high an low, making it sound fuller and richer and less edgy.

I don't have Rava's album on LP, but I do have a couple of Nora Jones albums on CD and LP. I'd stopped playing the CDs after I got my Pro-ject TT. Now the CDs are back out. In direct comparison, the glare and edge I was hearing in Nora's voice on CD is now gone. The images are now as big as the LP. The improvement is VAST.

Still, I think it took a sparely recorded album like Rava's to clearly demonstrate to me what I was hearing. Everything sounded fuller, more dynamic and just plain better, but now I can explain better why.

The excellent Reference Recordings CD "Crown Imperial" shows a couple of other advantages of the MPS-5. When things get really complex, with everybody playing loud but different lines at the same time it's much easier to pick out each line. I've played this before as a trumpeter, so I have a very good idea what's going on. Even knowing that I'd lose lines with the Pioneer, where the PD kept each line separate and easy to follow.

The controls are simple and intuitive, with a nicely backlit remote. The drawer is solid and fast. Like most drawers, if you push on it when it's open, it'll close. The chassis is heavy aluminum plate. At this price you might hope for a chassis machined from aircraft billet, but instead you get a solidly made chassis that's attractive, stiff and heavy.

There are balanced and unbalanced analog outputs (I used balanced into my Rowland Continuum 500 integrated amp). There is a wide selection digital inputs and outputs, but no HDMI either in or out. (My Pioneer has DSD-out via HDMI, so I miss the potential to use that with the Playback Designs).

Playback Designs' web site is not up yet, but it will be reasonably soon, I hope. I leave that to give you more technical details. I'm only here to talk about sonics.

Sorry that I didn't have any 10 and 20-thousand dollar players to compare the MPS-5. Mike, Ted and Dave have started that and there'll be more to come.

BTW, the retail price is $15,000 and there's an introductory price of $10,000. I have no idea how long that'll last, but I suspect it'll end soon, when the web site is up and marketing swings into full force.

Dave
dcstep
Well, the PD did very well at the 2008 RMAF in Soundings and Sounds Real's rooms.

At Soundings there as an A-B with the very nice looking Marantz SA7. The Marantz had only 100-hours on it by Sunday, but the PD was much more dynamic, imaged more naturally and had better bottom to top balance. I was in the room when about 8 wittnessed the switch from the Marantz to the PD and all preferred the PD and heard the improvement immediately and clearly.

The was no A-B in the Sounds Real room, but the sound was very nice with Wilson Benesch speakers. The speakers were not coupled with the room like I'd like, so the bass was a little reserved, but the mids and highs were crystal clear, transparent and wonderful.

We hauled the PD around to the Esoteric room to compare to the 3-box Esoteric stack. The PD was superior until the Esoteric was put into the DSD mode rather than PCM and balanced interconnects were added, then it got very, very close. Those speakers were not coupled to the room either, so bass was totally lacking, leading to an incomplete comparison; however, based on what I could hear, the Esoteric is a very nice sounding and physically attractive unit. It's too close to call without further listening in a full range system.

I'm hoping that a few others will add their observations, particularly those that were able to A-B with the Marantz.

Dave
Marantz SA7S1 in the Soundings room was impressive for a new player that was essentially just out of the box. . . Id did display some understandable slight roughness in the mid treble and a slight propensity for congestion that was already largely abated by the end of the show. . . however the MPS-5 still sounded more 'complete', resolving, with clearer imaging/staging/harmonic exposure. . . seemed similar in authority/headroom. . . it will be interesting to compare the two when both devices are fully broken in.

Comparison of MPS-5 with Esoteric P03/D03/G03 stack was a little difficult to say the least. Esoteric suite had sub optimal speaker placement that generate some brightness at the top and a less than satisfactory bass. Furthermore, we did not have sufficient Esoteric wiring to have completely satisfactory ICs on tristac and PD. . . so we used Cardas Golden Ref between PD and Esoteric C03 linestage and between D03 and C03.

Within the limitations and artifacts outlined above, what were heard were 2 amazingly good digital front ends once the Esoteric tristack was optimized for balanced operations and upsampled to DSD. While I may have subjectively perceived some advantages in clarity, expansive staging, imaging, and harmonic exposure from the Esoteric, we should consider that the tristack with the non Rubidium G03 clock and the additional ICs and PCs costs over 4 times the Playback Designs MPS-5. Besides, MPS-5 has USB server support today, while Esoteric was showcasing prototype USB support capability that will not be available for sale until CES. G.
Dave & Guido,

I am looking for that last digital purchase (I am 55) and it sounds like if I read both of your last answers correctly that the Playback Designs was very close to Esoteric 3 box combo. If that is right the Playback must be quite impressive. Any other input on the your Playback vs. Esoteric listening.

Thanks.
If you search this site and www.audioasylum.com you'll find a ton of discussion. Also, there's a review at Positive Feedback. I'm hoping that some non-owners that heard the PD at RMAF will add their comments. Guido's a non-owner.

So far, based on personal accounts sent to me by users here and at the asylum, it's replaced Emm, AMR, Marantz and Esoteric (single-box) in user systems.

Unfortunately the Esoteric system's speakers were not properly set up and our time was limited and we couldn't take the Esoteric to another, better room; therefore, I think we've said about all we can say in fairness.

I'm comfortable with my report that the Esoteric needed to be in DSD mode and connected with balanced ICs and then it got very close. Because of the system's limited bass response our report is incomplete, even for a preliminary report. Others, sitting behind us in the same room, were hearing the same things and, in fact, one was a dealer and inquired about how to contact the PD distributor.

Dave
Dave is correct, I own neither MPS-5 nor Esoteric tristack; rather, my CDp is the single box TEAC X-01 Limited, which I have not had the opportunity of comparing directly to PD as yet. Given the various unfavorable circumstances of the session, all I can say is that in the end I had some distinct but not overwhelming sonic/musical preference for TEAC tristack over PD, and that both players are amazingly good in their own right.
It is also worth pointing out that, as I have used exclusively X-01 LE for a few years, I may have developed some affinity for the TEAC house sound.
In final analysis, if I had no budget constraints, I would go for TEAC P03/D03/G0Rb (yes, with the higher end Rubidium clock, which according to Tim Krable of TEAC yields even higher sonic performance than G03); If I were 'budget' conscious I would be excited to obtain the PD MPS-5; and finally, as in reality I have 0 budget for a new front end, I will stick to my trusted old X-01 Limited for a spell longer. Guido