Playback mpd3

Add another disappointed PD customer. Used to own the MPS5 and transport was noisy as hell.

To their credit, they did inspect it by an engineer in Germany (twice with no resolution), but for me the MPS5 was a failed design: the outer casing is way too thin and flaky for it to manage the heavy and noisy Esoteric transport. Unless you put it away in an airtight closet or 20m away from your listening position, it will drive anyone nuts.

Had a K01 and noisy transport was much better isolated and i couldnt complain.

AMR service is stellar and their machines are one of the best build in the business. Sound is also impressive, though no DSD support for the moment.

Hi Guys

Although we are moving away from the original post I feel I must point out the post I made was repeated in essence on another forum and it sent events in train such that I have had correspondence with both Jonathan and the Australian distributor.

I am now aware there were factors involved in my experience that fully explain it and I am now a fully satisfied customer. I would indeed buy another PD product now. No need to divulge what they were but what happened was reasonable in light of that information.

Thanks
Bill

Ghasley,
With all due respect, I believe most of what came out of the case was in favor of EMM. Please note that I stated "I was not impressed by what I read about Jonathan Tinn." If you read the court documents you may understand why. I believe this is relevant here because it speaks to character and may help us to understand the broader context regarding poor customer service at Playback Designs.

Actually, Jonathan was always very responsive on emails.

It was the support email that I usually got no response from but that was because I didn't furnish my invoice when I registered.

Hopefully that's sorted now.

I have the EMM Labs XDS1 and the Playback MPS5 and I'd say neither were particularly noisy. I've had both in the same room. In fact the MPS5 (now in my study) is barely 3 feet away from me and spinning away without calling attention to itself. I think my CD Pro2 based Ayon sounds noisier.

I do agree the top of the line Esoteric transports used in the K01 (and I think the newest multi box dCS) are a marvel but there's something right about Playback and EMM's DSD DAC implementation that I like and the previous implementations on Esoteric's Cirrus and other off the shelf DAC chips just didn't gel with me. I think the K01's AKM DAC seems to be much better but I can't bring myself to buy a 25k player that uses off the shelf DAC chip.

Sabai, with all due respect you are mistaken. The case of Tinn vs EMM (please note it was Tinn suing EMM, not the other way).

" OPINION AND ORDER EMM's motion 149 for summary judgment against Tinn's breach of oral agreement claim is GRANTED. EMM's alternative motion for an order precluding Tinn from recovering damages for future profits and profits on sales not actually made is DENIED as moot. Tinn's motion 144 for partial summary judgment on liability is also DENIED as moot. However, the court will permit Tinn to proceed on a quantum meruit theory to recover the compensation, if any, EMM di d not pay to him for services and sales he performed for EMM's benefit during the period of their business relationship. Timm's motion for summary judgment against EMM's Lanham Act counterclaim is GRANTED as to the allegation of false advertising but DENIED as to the allegation of false association. Finally, Tinn's motion 159 to amend his complaint is DENIED as untimely. Signed on 2/27/09, by Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta. "

EMM recived a summary judgement on the first claim by Tinn due to Oregon law prohibiting, among other issues, a verbal contract of longer duration than one year. It was also apparent that they never agreed fully on the terms, thus, also rendering the idea that they ever had an agreement formally in doubt. The next two issues were found in EMM's favor because they were tied to the initial claim of breach of agreement, which were declared moot. Tinn was granted relief to receive the compensation due him.

Sebai, I don't know who you are or what bone you have to pick but you are mischaracterizing the content of their case, a case I am sure neither party wanted to pursue. In a nutshell, Tinn was asked to clean up the distribution mess for EMM, he did so. They never reached a final agreement (according to testimony) and yet Tinn continued to rep and distribute their products. It is obvious that EMM got very upset when Koch left EMM to start Playback Designs and EMM withheld payments to Tinn, to which Tinn was granted relief by the court.

Again, I have no afiliation to Tinn or Playback other than as a happy customer. Sebai, do you have any affiliation to EMM or anyone else involved in this case? The only thing of which I am certain presently about your background is that you are not an attorney nor do you play one on television. Regards.