Playback Designs MPS-5 versus the EMMLabs CDSA SE
This was a rather hurried back and forth shootout that lasted about an hour to an hour and a half. Neli and I were somewhat at an advantage, because we are very familiar with the system – and a very high-resolution system at that.
The system consisted of the Marten ‘Coltrane Supreme’ loudspeakers, Lamm ML2.1 amps, and Lamm L2 linestage. Cables were a mix of Nordost ODIN, Valhalla and Jorma Design PRIME. Powercords were Elrod and AcroLink. All components were on HRS platforms (and the front end on the HRS SXR equipment rack) except the Marten speaker crossover [Hmmm… we got to get this boy a M3 too].
[More photos of the PD in the previous post]
The Playback Designs MPS-5 (PD) only had about 300-400 hours on it so far, so we assumed that it was enough like the CDSA that its break-in process would be go through likewise phases of dynamic compression before opening up at around 700 to 1000 hours.
In some large sense the fact that the PD is still breaking in invalidates some of what we heard. But, considering how many of the reviews out there are of unbroken-in equipment – we thought we’d at least publish a few impressions to add a little sanity to the mix.
The short and sweet is that the PD is a very good player but I don’t think it beats the CDSA SE with the latest transport and software updates.
That doesn’t mean EMMLabs can rest easy – this player has a lot going for it – and it is similar enough to the CDSA [at this point] that it will cause confusion in the marketplace [though at $15K versus the CDSA’s 11.5K, there is a price difference – though the PD does offer additional functionality for the higher price tag by providing digital inputs on the back of the unit).
OK. Details…
The PD had very good PRaT which I thought was slightly better than the CDSA.
The PD had a slightly more colorful tone – which is not to say warm, tho it might be thought of that way – but more like the Kharma kind of exuberance – or that of analog. The Meitner is also known for its pureness of tone – and the PD was like that, only tipped up a little. I did not find it to be out of proportion to reality, necessarily, but it was a definite difference from way the CDSA was interpreting the CD.
Another difference was that either the soft notes were made more prominent – or the midrange and highs were made more prominent – which I think resulted in several more sonic differences [according to my mental model of what is happening]:
1. The soundstage was more forward. This was neither more or less pleasant than the CDSA – it just WAS.
2. There was more ‘perceived’ resolution – a lot of the subtleties of the music were more evident [note that this differs from Dave’s interpretation – by I think I have an explanation for this further on]
3. There was a higher noise floor
4. Because lots of very soft sounds were now more in evidence there wasn’t a clear demarcation between images in the soundstage.
5. This lead to a feeling that there was a larger presence, more of a oneness or wholeness to the stage – perhaps even more ‘continuousness’ where notes flowed well into each other.
All this elevation of low-level detail also to a feeling that there was [is? have to remember – this player isn’t broken in yet, and although the CDSA doesn’t sound like this when it is breaking in – this is not the CDSA] an innate lack of dynamic range between the quietest note and the loudest – and that there was ‘fuzz’ between the musicians. I felt that there were too many ‘cues’ [very low level subtle sounds like the sound bouncing off the guitar] telling the ear where everything was and concluded that there was some information that really shouldn’t be there – that things were moving around too much and too large – and that it also tended to make the notes rounder – even though the notes were great there were just a lot of other sounds around the note that was filling in around it – perhaps making it *seem* rounder.
So, in conclusion, this is a very nice player but CDSA SE owners do not have anything to worry about, …yet. However, if they look in the ‘solid-state players less than $50K rear view mirror’, they will see a new player has appeared out of nowhere where before there was none in sight.
Emm Labs is a company with equipment in most pro studios in the world. This is Playback Design’s first product.
I am hoping that Playback Designs and EMM Labs continue to diverge with respect to the sound of their equipment – both to reduce the potential of litigation [the head engineer at PD is from EMM Labs] and to offer the audiophile more choices.
Our heartfelt thanks go to Dave for lugging his player up all those stairs 🙂
—-
[Whew! Hard review to write, trying to be fair to both players and to both manufacturers who we like and respect – and one of which, Emm Labs, we represent in the marketplace. Also, people get so passionate about their latest high-end audio toy – one of the reasons magazines only publish positive, non-comparative reviews is just to avoid the poop storms :-)].
Nice job Mike.
I frankly wasn’t paying as much attention to micro dynamics as you, evidently, so I can’t really comment on your observations in that regard. We probably should have played a little more Mahler on both to really focus more on dynamics, both massive and micro.
Mike said and I said it and now I’d like to re-emphasize that these are first impressions based on listening for a limited amount of time on a very revealing system. The time spent really raised a long list of things to investigate further, rather than resolving much. I think that we totally agreed about the PD seeming slightly more forward in its overall presentation.
I was astounded by the images on the CDs and SACDs with lots of phase-play (Pink Floyd and Radiohead) and while those are incredible fun, it’s absolutely impossible to define a “right.” The Branco CD was stunning, presenting Branco’s voice in a very unusual way in my experience. (Is there phase-play going on there? No matter, I ordered two of her CDs on Thursday.) Anyway, I’d love to have pulled out a few more of my female vocalists to see if I noticed any of the same differentials.
Oh, the other thing that we all agreed on, without reservation at all, they’re both great players. One is kinda vanilla and one is kinda chocolate, but neither is that far away from the other.
Oh, my short and sweet conclusion is; if I were chosing between these two and had only this session to make up my mind, I would go with the PD. I think that Mike’s description, so far as we was paying attention to the same things, was accurate, but I preferred the way that the MPS-5 did things overall.
Hi Dave,
Thanks for your comments – and the stand-up way you presented your case on the forums. I know it can get pretty aggressive out there – and the PD’s primary promoters are some of the most aggressive of all.
Even though we honestly prefer the CDSA [for everything it doesn’t do wrong, if nothing else] and the Audio Note digital, for that matter [also for everything that is doesn’t do wrong, for what better definition is there of perfection in high-end audio than Do No Harm?] – I think we understand each other and that this is all pretty darn good sounding equipment. I mean, this ain’t Wadia [can I say that? :-). I know, I know – they are working on improving their sound – and it is actually getting better. Soon, all their previous fans will have to find something else ear-scratchingly horrible to tout as the best.]
The CDSA has become the Gold Standard in players [and at $11.5K it is unbelievably reasonably priced – I got my not-state-of-the-art Levinson 39 for $6500 in 1996 which is more than $11.5K in today’s poor dollars]. Like Nordost Valhalla, Mercedes, the Matrix, etc., every product has to compare themselves to, and try to unseat, the standard bearer. To attempt this ‘unseating’, there is just a whole lot of misrepresentation [aka lying. I think this word has to come back into common usage given the current state of dialog on the net and TV] – which confuses the people who can not get access to the product to really scope it out without buying it first.
As for Radiohead, and Pink Floyd to a lesser degree, we have heard that track on 100s of systems – and so we are most familiar with what ‘right’ should be – and it is a test track that is very complex in its simplicity.
So those tracks were mostly for Neli and I – we are used to getting an immediate reading of a system very quickly using these tracks – but you are right, we should have played more vanilla music – and specifically music that we all three of us are very familiar with. Here’s to better planning next time! 🙂
Thanks again for bringing up the PD.
Take care,
Mike
It would be very interesting comparing the new EMM Labs TSD1 + DAC2 versus Playback designs MPS-5
Hello Raimon,
Of course this is just speculation on my part and an actual fair comparison should be done to draw any conclusive conclusions …… but with the above post of the PD vs. EMM single-box being an indication on how the 2 units compare, then I would have to conclude from my experience with the EMM single-box – the EMM silver badge DAC6se/CDSDse – and the new EMM DAC2/TSD1, is that the new EMM duo is just on a whole another level of fidelity.
best,
Tom
Tom, I totally disagree with your conclusion and think you’re dreaming to reach it based on reading our remarks here. The units are very close. Having heard subsequently heard Emm in other systems, I find that I still clearly prefer the PD. No doubt, Mike will say that he prefers Emm. The point is, it was a close comparison and preferences came down to personal views in choosing between two very fine players.
Mike, how anyone would know how DSOTM is supposed to sound is beyond me. It’s great music and engineering and all out of phase on purpose. I think that your bay window, high ceiling location of the Coltranes added to the distortion. For example, the Branco vocal was floating around over the left speaker and I now know that it should have been firmly centered between the speakers. With Radiohead and Pink Floyd that speaker placement adds to the dramatic impact, but for simple stereo recordings it was confusing and distorted. I was slow to realize this until I re-listened in my own system and realized that your big room. Given the confusion I was mainly focusing on timbre and macro dynamics.
Still, it was fun and informative to me.
Dave
Hello Dave,
I’m sincerely happy that you are getting so much enjoyment out of the PD. It must be a killer player!!!
Best,
Tom
Hi Dave,
All I can say is that we have heard that music 100s if not 1000s of times on 100s if not 1000s of different configurations of that system. The bay window and high-ceiling is actually a plus [for most large speakers] which is why they design concert halls like that.
So, as you might expect, the demo was much more informative for us than it was for you.
It is my opinion that PD and Emm Labs are diverging and have different goals. If I were to be so bold, I would say that Emm Labs has been perusing high fidelity and PD high musicality – or at least a cross product between the two. Therefore comparing the EMM Labs TSD1 + DAC2 versus Playback designs MPS-5 makes less sense than one might at first suppose.
Of the things we have been enamored with of late: Nordost ODIN, the Lamm ML3 and the TSD1/DAC2 are high fidelity landmarks. The Audio Note Kegon Balanced amps are a cross between the two. The lovely Kharmas are, for example, high musicality.
And I am with Tom, we are so glad you are enjoying the PD so much.
Take care,
Mike.