AMR / EMM / PLAYBACK Designs

For those of you who think that they have heard the PD, you really have not heard it the PD unless you heard it with the Wave Kinetics Vibration Source Control System that Chambers Audio is encouraging PD customers to use.

Its so good that I dare say it should be sold directly with the Playback Designs unit. I am not sure why its so effective because the footers on the PD seem quite good but these items neutralize vibration so well that the redbook on the PD truly soars. The focus improves, the detail improves, and the overall presentation is just so much better.

Hi Frankg, actually, I agree that the PD had more forgiving, sweeter, and well, better highs than the EMM, and also that it is more organic. And yes, it does have more weight in the images, but I felt that the images were overweight, and there was some sort of pounding I just did not care for. Maybe because I have had EMM so long, I am just used to it. The EMM never pushes anything at me, and seems to draw me in, and seems to have a "real" sound, something like the realness I remember with my old Apogee Stage speakers.
The EMM highs can be a little raw on some CDs, and I noticed that the same CD did not have this rawness on the PD, but is sounded like the the PD was somehow altering the sound in a strange way, and, as I mentioned, I just kept feeling that the sound was "wavy." I've been through a number of players (Meridian 508.24, Accuphase 75V, Sony 777ES and now Sony 5400ES) and I've never come across this particular affect. Maybe it was just my player, but that's all I have to go on. So, I am sticking with my trusty EMM SE pair (can't afford the new EMM gear).

Okay, good news. Firmware 104_023 for the XDS1 has passed QA and can now be found at the EMM Labs website. This solves the SACD distortion issue with multiple digital input switches, improves digital input locking and includes the "subtle" sound quality enhancement. Unfortunately, the password for firmware files has changed and I have no idea what it is.

as far the Playback Designs viewpoint on the sound, whether it has too much weight, is too forgiving, or 'adds' something.....i can only say that whatever it's doing along those lines, my 3 tt's do and where i have a 15ips 1/4" master dub playing on my Studer RTR deck/King-Cello repro of the same recording they do it similarly too. it's hard to find a better sonic reference than that.

pianos, drum kits, violins, vocals; the weight, body, decay, harmonic texture......all resemble the analog sound.

the leaner, flater, more 'crisp' sound many like is not the Playback Designs character; neither is it any of my tt's or my RTR master dubs.

which is real?

or more properly...which does one prefer?

there is not only one answer to that.

Andreas Koch (PD designer and for many years the EMM digital designer) visited me in my home last week; he was here in Seattle with his family to go on an Alaska cruise. we had a long talk (he talked, i listened) about how people listen and how the PD has different sonic priorities than other digital players. when i put on a few master tapes on the Studer (Andreas worked for Studer 25 years ago and headed a team which developed the digital recording version of my Studer A-820--his college room-mate designed the analog output of my A-820) it was fun comparing that to the digital from the PD.

My standard of comparison when I auditioned the PD in my home for anout ten weeks was my Rockport Sirius with a Lyra Titan i and later swapped out for an Ortofon A90. I did not have a reel to reel for comparison but am familiar with Albert Porter's totally rebuilt Studer A810. Based on that, I felt that the EMM Labs XDS1 was more accurate.