Playback Designs DAC vs. Scarlatti DAC
- Thread starter caesar
- Start date
Hyperbole is not a necessity. As a matter of fact it distracts from what any0one is trying to convey. We should bear in mind that differences in these units are subtle. At that level it is even more so... What does hyperbole accomplish then?. Does it describe truly what is going on?
I don't see reviews professional (whatever that truly means) or otherwise but no one is able to audition all the gears available out there. A review should convey an impression the gear had on the listener, that can be useful, allowing the reader to form an idea and maybe research the gear more and audition it, if the review fits my wants, needs or preferences. Once a person has experienced a gear for him/heself under adequate conditions and with a open mind then one can establish if the review was valid or not...
an hyperbole I just tha going beyond the truth, stretching and often some characterizations are downright misleading... and here the qualification of the DcS bass as "thick" and its reproduction as being "un-live" i take it as a gross exaggeration a useless, misleading statement for those who have not heard or can't readily audition a DcS because it is NOT true. Saying it was too prominent would help and would establish the listener preferences... Now there are gears and likely DACs with thick bass .. These are not DcS.
I am not a huge fan of DcS by the way, I prefer even to their top of the Line he Burmesters DACs, the Playback Design and the wonderful one of the best I have heard Berkely. I have made an audiophile mistake: In the interim I acquired two DACs a Benchmark HDR pre and a M2Tech Young ... and some accessories .. I could have acquired a second hand Berkely for not much more ...
So there is a case for expressing a point of view even in a forceful fashion but not much for hyperbole .. We can do much better than that
And by the way, Caesar , it's not personal ...I hope you gather that ...
I don't see reviews professional (whatever that truly means) or otherwise but no one is able to audition all the gears available out there. A review should convey an impression the gear had on the listener, that can be useful, allowing the reader to form an idea and maybe research the gear more and audition it, if the review fits my wants, needs or preferences. Once a person has experienced a gear for him/heself under adequate conditions and with a open mind then one can establish if the review was valid or not...
an hyperbole I just tha going beyond the truth, stretching and often some characterizations are downright misleading... and here the qualification of the DcS bass as "thick" and its reproduction as being "un-live" i take it as a gross exaggeration a useless, misleading statement for those who have not heard or can't readily audition a DcS because it is NOT true. Saying it was too prominent would help and would establish the listener preferences... Now there are gears and likely DACs with thick bass .. These are not DcS.
I am not a huge fan of DcS by the way, I prefer even to their top of the Line he Burmesters DACs, the Playback Design and the wonderful one of the best I have heard Berkely. I have made an audiophile mistake: In the interim I acquired two DACs a Benchmark HDR pre and a M2Tech Young ... and some accessories .. I could have acquired a second hand Berkely for not much more ...
So there is a case for expressing a point of view even in a forceful fashion but not much for hyperbole .. We can do much better than that
And by the way, Caesar , it's not personal ...I hope you gather that ...
Hyperbole is not a necessity. As a matter of fact it distracts from what any0one is trying to convey. We should bear in mind that differences in these units are subtle. At that level it is even more so... What does hyperbole accomplish then?. Does it describe truly what is going on?
I don't see reviews professional (whatever that truly means) or otherwise but no one is able to audition all the gears available out there. A review should convey an impression the gear had on the listener, that can be useful, allowing the reader to form an idea and maybe research the gear more and audition it, if the review fits my wants, needs or preferences. Once a person has experienced a gear for him/heself under adequate conditions and with a open mind then one can establish if the review was valid or not...
an hyperbole I just tha going beyond the truth, stretching and often some characterizations are downright misleading... and here the qualification of the DcS bass as "thick" and its reproduction as being "un-live" i take it as a gross exaggeration a useless, misleading statement for those who have not heard or can't readily audition a DcS because it is NOT true. Saying it was too prominent would help and would establish the listener preferences... Now there are gears and likely DACs with thick bass .. These are not DcS.
I am not a huge fan of DcS by the way, I prefer even to their top of the Line he Burmesters DACs, the Playback Design and the wonderful one of the best I have heard Berkely. I have made an audiophile mistake: In the interim I acquired two DACs a Benchmark HDR pre and a M2Tech Young ... and some accessories .. I could have acquired a second hand Berkely for not much more ...
So there is a case for expressing a point of view even in a forceful fashion but not much for hyperbole .. We can do much better than that
And by the way, Caesar , it's not personal ...I hope you gather that ...
Not taken that way, Frantz. Thick, the way it is used in audio circles, means A LOT if information. dCS makes you think about all that information it's feeding you. Boulder, on the other hand, establishes a really nice foundation to the music that makes you forget that you are listening to hi-fi. Usually this stuff becomes apparent when you are comparing back to back.
So I went to relisten to the 4 box Scarlatti again recently. I played mostly jazz and blues, as they are the types of music that I get to hear live very frequently. I hate to disappoint the dCS zealots and fanatics, but the dCS rhythm section was just too polite. Yes, it had detail galore and it was as smooth as the baby's bottom- as it should for $80K! But it lacked that immediacy, snap, punch, crack, dynamic explosiveness, energy, excitement, etc., that enables you to get into a state of psychological state of flow and get immersed in the music.
IMHO, the dCS designers need to move away from the "audiophile" reference and re-establish live music as their reference. Or better yet, provide a digital filter for the audiophile and provide another filter for the guy with a live music reference.
IMHO, the dCS designers need to move away from the "audiophile" reference and re-establish live music as their reference. Or better yet, provide a digital filter for the audiophile and provide another filter for the guy with a live music reference.
Went hog-wild with all kinds of gear - wilson Maxx3, Magnepan, Boulder, Classe amps that Stereophile's Atkinson is in love with, Ayre KX-R...
But the constant remained - when the Scarlatti was compared to Boulder one box CD player, you got the different experiences I described above - the thrill of the live music experience vs. the "perfection" of the audiophile experience. Make your own choice, but be aware of the differences.
OK, I guess this is part of your crusade against what you call "audiophile" brands, no?
It's cool, you have your preferences and all that.
Me, I tried all sorts of gear, more expensive even, players with tube outputs, and none offered the experience I get with the DCS, first with the Puccini, and now the Paganini.
alexandre
It's cool, you have your preferences and all that.
Me, I tried all sorts of gear, more expensive even, players with tube outputs, and none offered the experience I get with the DCS, first with the Puccini, and now the Paganini.
alexandre
Could you please state what was the preamplfier, amplifier and cables in each case? Otherwise your opinion will be useless - it can just be a mismatched system. Just nominating some expensive brands does not mean the system was well matched.
I think you are mis-understanding my points. We all come to this hobby from different reference points. And we are looking for different virtues in the time we spend with our systems. If you have played in Frank Sinatra's band for 30 years, like one of my friends has, or if you played jazz drums for a long, long time, and if you were to listen to the Scarlatti, it would just not sound that real to you as to someone who has solely played jazz records in their home for the last 30 years. That guy will get off on the audiophile vocabulary, and there is nothing wrong with that. I have friends like that. Another guy, who is a gear swapper, is going to get off on gear that gives him insight into different facets of the recording detail. Nothing wrong with that either....
My pet peeves are not with those who enjoy something different. It is with the ill-incentivized media elites who are pushing their own agenda. With the categories I mention above, there is not one best as the magazines and audio media elites claim and call Product of the Year. Doing comparisons of gear that shows relative strengths and weaknesses is rarely done. For a media elite to identify what their level of reference is, or where they are coming from, is also very rare. It is very easy to say go listen for yourself. But there are so many products on the market in so few places, that people don't often get a chance to do that. And this fog and the illusion of authority is what gives power to the audio media. I just enjoy busting up their myths.
If you love your dCS, I am sincerely thrilled for you. I don't know what the rest of your system is and don't care. I just hope that after the first micro-second you listen to it, you enter into a state of flow - that state of complete immersion where thought and action merge so that you forget about everything else and connect to the humans who created the music and who are performing the music. That is the essence of happiness, and that state is the same whether you are a music lover listening to your system, whether you are a surgeon performing in a life-saving situation, or Michael Jordan working his magic on the court.
I'm not sure what this means, but I think you intend it as a good thing, right?
Me, I'm all about the widgets. And while I'm appreciative of what some others do in this space, I've never been as impressed as I've been by the Scarlatti stack.
I'm happy that you've been so impressed by something more affordable.
I wasn't able to find from the DCS website, perhaps I overlooked it, but how would one attach the Scarlatti to a PC/Mac? It seems to have a FireWire input, is it asynchronous (both with and without the use of the separate Scarlatti clock)? Or would you be better off utilizing a separate USB->SPDIF solution?
Joost,
DCS' Firewire implementation is proprietary, doesn't work with computers, unfortunately.
You hook a PC/Mac to it via the Upsampler unit, which, while being part of the stack, is not mandatory. Same thing with the Paganini, which is what I have. I actually haven't received my Upsampler yet, so I'm using the Puccini U-Clock for USB/SPDIF duties (and clocking too).
alexandre
DCS' Firewire implementation is proprietary, doesn't work with computers, unfortunately.
You hook a PC/Mac to it via the Upsampler unit, which, while being part of the stack, is not mandatory. Same thing with the Paganini, which is what I have. I actually haven't received my Upsampler yet, so I'm using the Puccini U-Clock for USB/SPDIF duties (and clocking too).
alexandre
Alexandre, thanks. So using DCS in context of computer audio would mean either a Debussy, a Puccini U-Clock, or a Scarlatti up-sampler? Something feels strange about this. Putting the USB in the scarlatti clock seems more logical to me. I guess many wouldn't be interested in the up-sampler, but maybe that's the whole point.
I believe the whole USB/computer audio thing was added in the DCS line up, after the fact. The original models (Puccini, Paganini and Scarlatti) had no USB, so they had to come up with a way to add that.
With the "cheap" Puccini, they did a 2-in-1 unit, the U-Clock. For the Paganini/Scarlatti, the decision was to go call it "upsampler", as they already had a separate clock unit (Puccini had none). Calling it a simple "USB-SPDIF" interface and charging a lot for it wouldn't do, so they made it an "upsampler"
I did some tests here, with the Paganini stack (minus Upsampler) + Puccini U-Clock, comparing it to a simple Musical Fidelity V-whatever USB interface. There were noticeable diferences, but they were far smaller than one would assume from the prices of each.
I'm hoping the Paganini Upsampler will be considerably better than the Puccini U-Clock in the USB/SPDIF department, otherwise it simply won't be worth the investment.
alexandre
With the "cheap" Puccini, they did a 2-in-1 unit, the U-Clock. For the Paganini/Scarlatti, the decision was to go call it "upsampler", as they already had a separate clock unit (Puccini had none). Calling it a simple "USB-SPDIF" interface and charging a lot for it wouldn't do, so they made it an "upsampler"
I did some tests here, with the Paganini stack (minus Upsampler) + Puccini U-Clock, comparing it to a simple Musical Fidelity V-whatever USB interface. There were noticeable diferences, but they were far smaller than one would assume from the prices of each.
I'm hoping the Paganini Upsampler will be considerably better than the Puccini U-Clock in the USB/SPDIF department, otherwise it simply won't be worth the investment.
alexandre
Makes sense. Let us know how you get on with the Paganini upsampler and if it will be staying in the system!
New member / PD owner
Hello everyone,
Happy to report my Playback Designs MPD-3 sounds terrific after a few weeks of run-in time. What a stunning upgrade from my "baby step, toe-in-the water" first DAC (HRT Music Streamer II+) notwithstanding 20x price difference. Honestly, it was worth it.
Clarity is unreal, without sounding too dry. W-i-d-e soundstage (channel separation?). Biggest surprises: 1) sparkle that I frankly did not know my Tannoys were capable of, sans super tweeters; and 2) a newly apparent (frequently obvious) "phantom" center channel, which puts well-recorded vocals smack dab in the middle. Wow!
The difference is apparent to my fiancee's non-audiophile ears as well, however in the interest of full disclosure, she seemingly enjoys my "holy crap" and "did you hear that" outbursts, and J.Lo "goosies" in equal measure. Cannot wait to hear DSD, once Apple refreshes the Mini and I can run the requisite software.
Purchase was a leap of faith, after hearing Debussy (with VTL and Revel Ultima Studio2 at Music Lovers; not emotionally involving), influenced by Bruce Brown's insights here (thank you Bruce), and a friendly Saturday morning chat with Jonathan Tinn (great time to reach him; he was helpful and forthright, even called to follow up and ensure my satisfaction. Class act.).
Look forward to future participation, and to joining BAAS.
Brian
--
Mac PowerBook G4 (just won't die), generic USB, Playback Designs MPD-3, Furutech Ref III XLR, Parasound Halo JC 2 BP, Furutech Ref III XLR, Bryston 4B ST (targeted for upgrade; 15 years old), MIT Magnum 1.3, Tannoy Kensington SE
Hello everyone,
Happy to report my Playback Designs MPD-3 sounds terrific after a few weeks of run-in time. What a stunning upgrade from my "baby step, toe-in-the water" first DAC (HRT Music Streamer II+) notwithstanding 20x price difference. Honestly, it was worth it.
Clarity is unreal, without sounding too dry. W-i-d-e soundstage (channel separation?). Biggest surprises: 1) sparkle that I frankly did not know my Tannoys were capable of, sans super tweeters; and 2) a newly apparent (frequently obvious) "phantom" center channel, which puts well-recorded vocals smack dab in the middle. Wow!
The difference is apparent to my fiancee's non-audiophile ears as well, however in the interest of full disclosure, she seemingly enjoys my "holy crap" and "did you hear that" outbursts, and J.Lo "goosies" in equal measure. Cannot wait to hear DSD, once Apple refreshes the Mini and I can run the requisite software.
Purchase was a leap of faith, after hearing Debussy (with VTL and Revel Ultima Studio2 at Music Lovers; not emotionally involving), influenced by Bruce Brown's insights here (thank you Bruce), and a friendly Saturday morning chat with Jonathan Tinn (great time to reach him; he was helpful and forthright, even called to follow up and ensure my satisfaction. Class act.).
Look forward to future participation, and to joining BAAS.
Brian
--
Mac PowerBook G4 (just won't die), generic USB, Playback Designs MPD-3, Furutech Ref III XLR, Parasound Halo JC 2 BP, Furutech Ref III XLR, Bryston 4B ST (targeted for upgrade; 15 years old), MIT Magnum 1.3, Tannoy Kensington SE
Last edited:
Brian,
Your mini is most likely already capable of playing DSD. Just get one of the audio apps that handle it, as iTunes alone won't. Either Audirvana Plus or Pure Music will handle DSDIFF or DSDISO files.
alexandre
PS: Ah, I see your sig now... You don't have the mini yet, do you?
Your mini is most likely already capable of playing DSD. Just get one of the audio apps that handle it, as iTunes alone won't. Either Audirvana Plus or Pure Music will handle DSDIFF or DSDISO files.
alexandre
PS: Ah, I see your sig now... You don't have the mini yet, do you?
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |