Playback Designs DAC vs. Scarlatti DAC
- Thread starter caesar
- Start date
Bruce B
WBF Founding Member, Pro Audio Production Member
FWIW.. I've heard the Scarlatti in 2 different set-ups and couldn't pick a clear winner based on sound alone. Other factors (being price) and features would make the Playback the clear winner based on value. I don't feel like I'm missing out on anything.
I read through that thread and didn't see an evidence of him being a shill for them. Sure, they consider him a good customer and asked him to comment on the product but that doesn't make him a shill.
While I appreciate you wanting to know if someone has a special reason for saying something good, the bar needs to be pretty high to call someone a shill.
Bruce B
WBF Founding Member, Pro Audio Production Member
If I were a shill for JTinn, I'd own all his DartZeel electronics as well. Personally I don't care for them.
To be fair to you Bruce,
I know a few respectable dealers (highly experienced and honest to the point of stating they do not hear benefits from certain expensive tweaks and will suggest equipment they do not sell,etc) who also feel the same way regarding Scarlatti as you.
I do wonder if the Scarlatti system only sounds its best with the complete system (clock/upsampler/transport/DAC).
Was your experience the whole system or you managed to hear it as partial setup and full?
Just wondering if there is anyone who was not happy with the Scarlatti gear until its the complete (and then expensive) setup.
I appreciate there are others who do love the gear even when its just a single component.
Cheers
Orb
I've heard both the Scarlatti and the MPS-5 w/ USB-X, though not in the same system. No apples to apples. But I was pretty familiar with both systems, and I got to spend several weeks with the PB in my own. My feeling is that the PB is quite good and is competitive with the Scarlatti. But, if you add the rest of the "stack" of the dCS system, the distances open up and the separation becomes quite readily apparent. Playing at that level, I think the PB brings quite a bit of heat to the fire, to coin a rather crappy turn of phrase.
WRT to the thread on AudiogoN that Amir quoted, I think the Berkeley Audio Alpha DAC Series 2 -- with it's matching Alpha USB converter -- would change that conversation entirely.
WRT to the thread on AudiogoN that Amir quoted, I think the Berkeley Audio Alpha DAC Series 2 -- with it's matching Alpha USB converter -- would change that conversation entirely.
I have heard the DCS SCarlatti full stack in a system and room i know quite well (and have listened to regularly for auditions for years). It and the Vekian full stack are the first digital that made me realize how far digital has come since my Zanden. The full dCS stack is far quieter, has far more resolution and effortless delivery of detail than Zanden...but i decided i personally would not trade it for my zanden due to the Zanden's effortless delivery of tonal purity and music as a whole. The DCS delivered to me immense detail, natural tonal character, but not the magical coherance and purity that i feel with Zanden. I track-flipped with the DCS more than i wanted to...i have never track-flipped with Zanden. i have never heard Playback Designs.
I also did not track-flip with Vekian...but instead was surprised when i came to the end of the track...i had just listened. I would still need to spend more time with Vekian before making a definitive call that it totally outclasses the Zanden.
I also did not track-flip with Vekian...but instead was surprised when i came to the end of the track...i had just listened. I would still need to spend more time with Vekian before making a definitive call that it totally outclasses the Zanden.
steve williams
Site Founder, Site Owner, Administrator
I actually did a shoot out between them.
http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...ll-you-PD-MPS-5-vs.-Boulder-1021-vs.-Scaratti
I agree with you that adding elements to the stack greatly improves the Scarlatti's sound. However, the Scarlatti really sounds very thick, plodding, and un-live. It has very good detail retrieval and scores well on the audio term checklist. It' s a product marketed to audiophiles and those who have forgotten the live music reference.
The PD I have heard was much more open and alive, but a bit flat. Apparently they have put in a new apodizing filter that makes it sound more three dimensional. If anyone has loaded the software in the last 6 months or so, please share your thoughts on the changes in PD sound.
I was actually referring to the new Berkeley release, not so much the other two, but no matter.
Maybe it's interesting (or not), but my experience is pretty much the reverse. I don't suppose "synergy" is a bad thing to invoke here. To be fair, I've heard the PD sound great in a DarTZeel system. On the other hand, I've heard the full dCS Scarlatti system sound great in a top-line Conrad Johnson system, and another that combined Ypsilon with Wilson. With that latter system I got to a/b the Scarlatti stack with a Caliburn -- and I'd have taken the dCS hands-down. Does that mean it's better?
In a recent column, Fremer notes that he prefers the dCS Debussy to the MPS-5 and the Simaudio 650d to both (I think it was the Simaudio review). But I don't expect that to mean anything universal, only that in his system, that's where he's found better sound. YMMV.
Hi
I hve heard the DCS stack. I am not ofCaesar's opinion, The Scarlatti doesn't sound at all like his description.. It is far from "un-live" .. it is aas matter of fact extremely dynamic .. much so than most DAC one wil likely encounter,nor is it "thick", It is a very neutral combination with a superlative bottom end .. This said, I prefer the PB5 .. I have heard the PB5 in 3 different systems and every time its sonic signature , not coloration I hasten to say, were evident.. I will put aside the audiophiles jargon suffice to say it is up there with the best... Music comes out with the least hint of strain .. Some DACs rounded off the transients so as not to dound "digital" this does not and manages to sound both sweet and extended and with also a spueprlative bottom end .. mid-bass is not as good as the DcS for that you would have to go to the Burmester CD/DAC the 969 ...
I will however agree with this statement
At the level we are talking about , I sincerely believes it is a matter of sonic priorities: they do not sound the same... The DcS is precise and potent, the PB5, almost analog-like in its reproduction and the Berkely a combination of the two albeit less potent in dynamics and bass than the DcS.
For my money I would go with the Berkely DAC with its matching Alpha USB converter ... I hate to say this, but here it goes ...
at its price it challenges or surpassses the SOTA and is not embarrassed with direct comparison with any multi-mega-bucks DACs.. Rarely mentioned in best DACs around but a gem, a superior performer ..
I hve heard the DCS stack. I am not ofCaesar's opinion, The Scarlatti doesn't sound at all like his description.. It is far from "un-live" .. it is aas matter of fact extremely dynamic .. much so than most DAC one wil likely encounter,nor is it "thick", It is a very neutral combination with a superlative bottom end .. This said, I prefer the PB5 .. I have heard the PB5 in 3 different systems and every time its sonic signature , not coloration I hasten to say, were evident.. I will put aside the audiophiles jargon suffice to say it is up there with the best... Music comes out with the least hint of strain .. Some DACs rounded off the transients so as not to dound "digital" this does not and manages to sound both sweet and extended and with also a spueprlative bottom end .. mid-bass is not as good as the DcS for that you would have to go to the Burmester CD/DAC the 969 ...
I will however agree with this statement
If it means what I think that the Berkely is as good or better IME than either of these ...
At the level we are talking about , I sincerely believes it is a matter of sonic priorities: they do not sound the same... The DcS is precise and potent, the PB5, almost analog-like in its reproduction and the Berkely a combination of the two albeit less potent in dynamics and bass than the DcS.
For my money I would go with the Berkely DAC with its matching Alpha USB converter ... I hate to say this, but here it goes ...
at its price it challenges or surpassses the SOTA and is not embarrassed with direct comparison with any multi-mega-bucks DACs.. Rarely mentioned in best DACs around but a gem, a superior performer ..
For my money I would go with the Berkely DAC with its matching Alpha USB converter ... I hate to say this, but here it goes ...
I agree -- which is why I bought my Berkeley.
IME, and in my system, the BADA2 w/USB was a little more "alive" sounding. And the price point, while far from cheap, was certainly more approachable than many of those others.
That said, if I add a second reference DAC to the mix, it still won't be dCS or PD.
Frantz, you don't have to agree with me, but I did hear the dcS and PD in the same system, swapping them out several times during the same listening session. dCS does sound very thick compared to PD. This is especially true on SACD. But dcs does sound more 3-d.
And when you compare the Scarlatti to boulder, it's like watching a race between a senior league participant and a major leaguer. If you want dynamics, get a Boulder.
hey Caesar...did you like the Boulder? Presume this was the 2020? Comments? Observations? Thanks!
I like the Boulder for redbook CD the best. My reference is live music, and Boulder recreates that sense of live better than the Scarlatti or anything else I have heard. It gets your foot tapping and puts you in a state of flow, where you can suspend disbelief that you are listening to a system and pretend that you are at a jazz club or a blues bar. I should mention that I don't really like Boulder electronics that much and I do not like the Boulder attitude that all audiophiles are cooks and nuts, while Boulder is holy because they got the best circuit, based on science.
If you have a lot of SACD's, it's hard to beat PD. It's so much better than anything else on SACD, they should numb the designer's brain to make things more fair.
I am completely puzzled by caesar's opinion of the dCS.
I haven't had the chance to listen to the actual Scarlatti stack, but I've had the dCS Puccini for a few years, and I love it. I compared it to the Playback DAC with USB-X thingie, and, fed the same source (Mac Mini), the dCS was way, way more extended in the frequency extremes. And guess what I used to compare? Dartzeel. So the Playback had a slight advantage as well.
Just last month I bit the bullet and bought the dCS Paganini stack. I honestly didn't believe it would be that big of an improvement over the Puccini. But when the first note struck, I knew I was dead wrong.
Everything that caesar wrote about the Scarlatti, I got in reverse here. Absolutely real, 3D images of the instruments and voices. Live music on it is simply incredible.
I honestly want to "believe", to see what the fuss is about Playback. I just don't see (or hear) it. And no, I'm not yer typical audiophile with a handful selected FIM audiophile discs. Tons of old 70s prog records here, old jazz, indie rock...
alexandre
I haven't had the chance to listen to the actual Scarlatti stack, but I've had the dCS Puccini for a few years, and I love it. I compared it to the Playback DAC with USB-X thingie, and, fed the same source (Mac Mini), the dCS was way, way more extended in the frequency extremes. And guess what I used to compare? Dartzeel. So the Playback had a slight advantage as well.
Just last month I bit the bullet and bought the dCS Paganini stack. I honestly didn't believe it would be that big of an improvement over the Puccini. But when the first note struck, I knew I was dead wrong.
Everything that caesar wrote about the Scarlatti, I got in reverse here. Absolutely real, 3D images of the instruments and voices. Live music on it is simply incredible.
I honestly want to "believe", to see what the fuss is about Playback. I just don't see (or hear) it. And no, I'm not yer typical audiophile with a handful selected FIM audiophile discs. Tons of old 70s prog records here, old jazz, indie rock...
alexandre
Hey Cesar can you remember which transport and DAC model you heard from dCS, just curious as it seems to me there is a distinct difference between the very latest models and ealier ones and would like to know which your experience applies to.
Everyone, lets not forget DACs can be very subtle in their differences and we all have subtly different preferences and focuses when listening to music on products, which do not necessarily match each other in our analysis (especially true IMO for DACs).
Some will love one product while others will not.
Thanks
Orb
Everyone, lets not forget DACs can be very subtle in their differences and we all have subtly different preferences and focuses when listening to music on products, which do not necessarily match each other in our analysis (especially true IMO for DACs).
Some will love one product while others will not.
Thanks
Orb
Hi
We audiophiles are fond of hyperbole. Our jargon is replete of wild exaggerations .. Still we have a baseline. We may not like a product but would recognize its merits. Assigning "thick" to any DcS is that kind of wild , baseless exaggeration . even the early stack of 10 years go.. I, personally prefer the PBD 5 or my previous Burmester to the DcS I auditioned but thick, none of these were .. One can prefer whatever one wants.. it is however another to describe a unit by an adjective, that for the overwhelming majority of audiophile can't apply to it.. "Thick" in the context of a DcS is at least laughable... I am assuming a functioning stack.
We audiophiles are fond of hyperbole. Our jargon is replete of wild exaggerations .. Still we have a baseline. We may not like a product but would recognize its merits. Assigning "thick" to any DcS is that kind of wild , baseless exaggeration . even the early stack of 10 years go.. I, personally prefer the PBD 5 or my previous Burmester to the DcS I auditioned but thick, none of these were .. One can prefer whatever one wants.. it is however another to describe a unit by an adjective, that for the overwhelming majority of audiophile can't apply to it.. "Thick" in the context of a DcS is at least laughable... I am assuming a functioning stack.
IMHO, audiophile hyperbole is due mainly to the absence of correct ways of expressing the differences. Also of being brief in forums, writing in seconds or minutes in a few lines what needs hours.
Please do not take it personally, but I can not understand how someone can express a preference for an expensive high-end DAC without hyperbole without fully describing the systems where he listened to the unit, how this system was optimized and what they have read about it . The differences are subtle but can be overwhelming in the appropriate system.
I have heard the top DCS, the top Kalista Metronome and the Playback in different systems - two of them in my listening room, but with different systems as it was not simultaneous. I have a idea how they can sound, but would not dare to write about them with full confidence based on these limited exposition and a few sessions elsewhere. But if I would need to choose one as a gift in the next ten seconds I would have no hesitation. Just in case I find an old oil lamp that needs cleaning ...
Please do not take it personally, but I can not understand how someone can express a preference for an expensive high-end DAC without hyperbole without fully describing the systems where he listened to the unit, how this system was optimized and what they have read about it . The differences are subtle but can be overwhelming in the appropriate system.
I have heard the top DCS, the top Kalista Metronome and the Playback in different systems - two of them in my listening room, but with different systems as it was not simultaneous. I have a idea how they can sound, but would not dare to write about them with full confidence based on these limited exposition and a few sessions elsewhere. But if I would need to choose one as a gift in the next ten seconds I would have no hesitation. Just in case I find an old oil lamp that needs cleaning ...
Similar threads
