2. digital
  3. 1264544877

Playback Designs MPS-5 - Measerments v. Sound

For all who are curios to read Michael Fremer`s comment
on one of the most controversial reviews in Stereophile (Feb 2010) concerning PD MPS-5 cd player, in which the ultimate question rises again - Can we actually measure perceived sound ?

"Thanks for writing. I would appreciate it if you'd post my response on Audiogon.

It's interesting that you say "it's time to rethink measurement methods" because John Atkinson just took the player back with him to perform some new ones on that player.

It's important to understand that the designer of that player has been at the forefront of DSD technology almost from its inception. Read the bio notes on the Playback website and/or in my review (which was written of course before I had any idea how the player would measure).

Andreas Koch knows what he is doing! That player's measurements are not the result of a botched effort or because he is unable to design a player that will measure as "perfectly" as is expected in conventional terms. Just as it's fairly easy these days to design a speaker that measures "flat" on-axis. But that is hardly the end all and be all of good speaker design!

Atkinson recently met up with Mr. Koch at an event and they had a long discussion about the measurements and that is why JA is revisiting them. The players measures as it does purposely according to Mr. Koch.

Believe me about one thing: you will not hear "noise" as such from that player!

You also understand that there are anti-SACD advocates out there who claim that SACD is not a high fidelity medium! Those include Dr. Stanley Lipschitz, in who I distrust all the time, but he's got the measurements to "prove" his case.

I can "prove" to you that LP playback measures way worse than CD playback but the listening is what counts to me. We don't measure everything. Our brains are far more sensitive than any measurement yet devised. Yes, we also can be fooled but we are also excellent receptors.

JA admitted to me that he's not quite sure what Mr. Koch was getting at in their discussion but that he's open to learning and understanding. JA understands that Mr. Koch is well aware of what he's doing in that design and perhaps one day we'll all understand what he's doing and why what he's done makes that player sound so good.

I suggest you listen to it. Or measure it. If you measure it you may reject it, but if you listen, you might find it's the player you want to own....

-Michael "
papaya
papaya OP
10 posts
 
In the forthcoming Feb Stereophile magazine, and in his column – As We See It - JA concludes his effort of many years of trying to understand and explain the phenomena well known by audio enthusiasts that reproduced recorded music through loudspeakers can never really imitate the live event of real instruments, by saying –
"Ultimately, therefore, it is perhaps best to just accept that live music and recorded music are two different phenomena". He basic explanation for that conclusion is fixed in the missing of one parameter that is never captured by the recordings – the "intensity" of the original sound.
Reading his conclusion and then reading the PD player review and his measurements findings of that player, made me wonder how could he miss the obvious conclusion, that maybe it is time for some rethinking of the fundamentals, meaning the basic measurements method that through many years "helped" perpetuating this sad outcome that we all face when we go the endless route of trying to capture the moon in our pond.
kijanki's avatar
kijanki
4,428 posts
 
Papaya - How can you expect "intensity" from the source (CD, LP) that has compressed dynamics. Just grand piano alone has huge dynamics that cannot be reproduced without speakers "buzzing" on boom box or cheap system. Audiophiles represent very small buying power - no incentive to make uncompressed media. Higher compression allows higher average loudness that sells CDs.
guidocorona
4,298 posts
 
As usual, I'll take the minority view. I agree that recorded and live are inherently different, and that attempting to reconcile the 2 forms of music amounts to a futile enterprise. . . as for recorded music being inherently less intense. . . it truly depends. I have heard plenty of examples corroborating or disproving the assertion in question. I prefer to suggest that recordings are a form of hyper reality, which requires a certain amount of 'congruence' with physical performances to be satisfying. . . but for the time being I deliberately leave the meaning of 'congruence' free to float. G.
dcstep
1,518 posts
 
I was with Guido when the Esoteric stack and PD were compared and I disagreed with him at the time. IMO, the Esoteric only got close when we inserted Guido's high-dollar Audioquest IC (was it the "River" Guido, or something like that?). I still preferred the PD, but the Esoteric did indeed fill out and become much, much better with his IC. It wasn't close using whatever they had in the system before, IMO.

This points out another issue with these multi-box set ups. The quality of the connecters has a very significant impact on what you hear at the end and they can add greatly to already monumental cost.

I like PD's approach of providing good usage of the internal DAC and clock, without resorting to separate boxes.

Dave
spectron
130 posts
 
One of many reasons why I love "Golden Era" recordings(late 50' - early 70') is audibly less compression there - as compared to most new original recordings....
Simon
More to discover