What Reviewers lack the cojones to tell you: PD MPS-5 vs. Boulder 1021 vs. Scaratti

Here are some thoughts and observations on some of the top digital made today - Playback Designs MPS 5, dCS Scarlatti, and Boulder 1021.

SACD
I have heard the dCS Scarlatti player many times. If you don't compare it any top digital product, it's pretty amazing. However once you compare it to the top competition, it's weaknesses are glaring. It's kind of like a top college draft pick who has been devouring the weak competition at the lower levels and looks physically bigger and stronger than anyone else on any college field. But once this person gets drafted in the first round and faces some real competition, he stinks up the joint and the bloom quickly comes off the rose.

The dCS player has an amazing ability to pick information off the disk, sounds smooth/ polished and presents the instruments in a very 3-dimensional manner. But it sounds really thick, dense, slow, plodding, and "too smooth". It's kind of like watching honey roll down. It doesn't get your foot tapping, which is the purpose of our hobby! In comparison on SACD, the Playback Designs player sounds much more open, dynamic, nimble, engaging, and alive. Boulder does not do SACD, so PD MPS 5 is the clear winner for SACD. For $65K less than the dCS player, owners of a lot of SACDs will be very satisfied with Playback Designs.

Redbook CD
The dCS sonic signature remains the same for SACD and red book - which is detailed but DULL. In comparison, the Playback designs player has much more pace and rhythm. But PD sounds flat and smooshed. For very old or badly recorded CDs, the dCS is definitely preferable to PD. Between dcS and PD for better recorded CDs, one has to decide if he prefers a more analytic, thicker, and slower player that has better space around the instruments (dCS) vs. a more nimble player that sounds very flat and doesn't have the musical detail of the best digital (PD).

Neither is ideal, IMO, so bring in Boulder 1021. In comparison, the Boulder has much better bass that makes music sound real. The Boulder also sounds more transparent - one can hear "right through" the stage, and hear the hiss as well a lot of tiny details. PD and Scarlatti get rid of the hiss and don't have the "open window" transparency. Boulder also does a good job with having 3 dimensional space around the instruments, but lacks the smooth highs of Playback Designs MPS 5. Despite the lack of highs, the Boulder is the best redbook player of the 3 due to its more real foundation it sets for all music with its exceptional bass dynamics. If Playback Designs could just get rid of the flatness and "smooshness" of the instruments, it would easily be top choice.

Too bad you could not get this information from reading the reviews. Both Fremer and Valin said dCS was the "best". Valin listens primarily to vinyl, so he probably doesn't know what good digital sounds like, and probably doesn't really care. And has he ever given a bad review to an expensive product? Why couldn't he pass this player on to Harley or Cordesman or Heilbrunn?

Fremer, on the other hand, bought the Playback designs review sample after he said the PD SACD was just like dCS. He lied - PD is better!! I could see him being "diplomatic" and not trying to ruin the Stereophile relationship with dCS. But he was completely wrong about the Playback Designs on CD. It was hard, flat, and smooshed. Yet this was left out of the review. Makes you wonder whose side the reviewers are on.

Bruce B said:

Bravo caesar.... i completely agree. Though have not heard the Boulder in MY system, I have heard the dCS against my PD MPS-5 and the PD player never fails the toe-tap test. I use it as a DAC in all of my mastering. I wouldn't say it's dull/flat on RBCD though. I just think it's more truthful of bad recordings.

Click to expand...

Thanks, Bruce. I wouldn't call PD dull by any means. It's very Naim-like, in fact. The issue is that the images are flatter than what you would find in a player like a Meridian, which uses an apodizing filter and makes the images come across more three dimensional in their own acoustical place. If someone is used to a player that eliminates the pre-ringing, the PD feels like it is missing some information (although it has plenty of other musical information that other players with apodizing filters lack). If Playback Designs could fix that one thing on redbook, it would be as good as anything out there, because it is so engaging.

slowGEEZR said:

While I've never heard the PD or the 1021, I can comment on the Scarlatti. I've listened to it for a few hours via the Wilson Maxx 3 and thought it sounded very good, that is, until I heard the same music reproduced by the Grand Prix Audio turntable in the same system. Night and day difference. So, I agree with caesar that the dCS has glaring weaknesses. I know, apples to oranges, but I couldn't resist.

Click to expand...

slowGEEZR, did you listen to cd or SACD/ hi-rez? I think when you take the space/ music collection/ hassle issues into account, the gap narrows considerably or disappears with hi-rez/ SACD.

audioguy said:

It's impossible to read this and not get more conformation about the diversity of what we hear. Fascinating.

Just think: if everyone liked the same speakers, DAC, CD transport, et al, there would be one very happy company.

Click to expand...

Audioguy, I couldn't agree more. I guess what I am after is identifying the differences between these brands to understand the diversity and choose the appropriate piece of gear. I am not sure if there is anyone on the planet that can describe the sonic differences between the contenders in the $15K+ cd player group of Wadia, dCS, Playback Designs, Zanden, Boulder, Meridian, EMM, etc. One would hope the reviewers would, but no such luck.

Personally, I know Murphy very well. As soon as I drop the big coin on a piece of gear, I run into someone who plays a piece I did not get a chance to hear. And it's DANG!!!!!!!!!!!!!