I am curious as to who has heard Ed Meitner's new top of the line player and whether you have been able to compare it to the Playback Designs MPS-5 player and if so what were your impressions?
XDS1/CD/SACD Player
- Thread starter Steve williams
- Start date
- Status
One of my good friends, Fred Crowder has recently acquired both for review. The review on the Playback Designs was positive but he pulled money out of the bank and bought the Meitner. I may visit him soon and have a listen.
Damn you Ed Meitner! Last night, I had the opportunity to hook up a Meitner XDS1 in my system as a direct substitute for my Meitner CDSA. I hooked it up at 3 pm and didn't even have the luxury of having a 24 hour period to "anneal" the cables, which I always prefer before making any sort of critical assessment. I had to head of out of town today so I spent the entire night listening to the XDS1 (Ok, I slept from 5 to 7 am.). What I heard was very impressive and basically spoiled me for the time being. The difference between the CDSA and the XDS1 is very significant. I was not prepared for the difference. The main difference is characterized by the familiar line "another layer of transparency" was pulled away and more was revealed.
I'm not sure that I truly get "jitter", or more specifically, what jitter sounds like. I know the CDSA is supposed to have very little, but the XDS1 is supposed to have less. I'm speculating, but I wonder if the further diminishment of jitter in the S1 accounts for the increased transparency that I heard? It was yet another step away from "digital" and towards "analogue". The reduction of grain was apparent across the board and was just mesmerizing. But voices in particular left my jaw slackened. (Cantante Domino, anyone?). I thought I had "good" before. With the S1, it was another step forward. There was simply less "grain" in everything I heard
A few other brief comments. The S1 is clearly better than the CDSA, the question is, is it worth 25K? I mean this is just nuts. A damn CD player for 25K. One can pick up a used CDSA for 6K. Is it really worth the additional money? Well, yes and no. Yes, in the sense that I haven't heard any other digital that is as musically correct and audibly pleasing. No, in the sense that I don't want to pay an inordinate amount of money for this difference. Unfortunately, until someone else can do what the S1 does, its not a matter of resenting the payment. It's a matter of can one be happy listening to the CDSA again? As I said earlier, damn you (or from a totally different mind set, thank you) Ed Meitner.
I have carefully compared the CDSA and the Playback Design unit previously. They are virtually sonically identical with the exception that the PD has a slightly better bottom end due to the superior TEAC transport used in it compared to the plastic tray and inexpensive transport used in the CDSA. But the XDS1 is now, for me, "the one". I have to bet that the performance of the XDS1 is driving Andreas and the folks at PD crazy trying to figure out how to meet or beat its performance in the PD line. Previously, the PD was just a CDSA on steroids (better bass, identical everywhere else, plus far greater flexibility as a DAC to use with any other source). But now, the difference between the XDS1 and both the PD or CDSA is a chasm. My hope is that if the PD folks can get comparable performance out of their next iteration of their PD to match the sound of the XDS1, it could happen at a friendlier price than 25K. At least we can hope so. But this will be interesting. The conventional wisdom is that it was Andreas that did all the digital algorithms for Meitner, so the PD should be the Meitner (CDSA) equal, which it is plus the aforementioned advantages. Well, the master now seems to have pulled something out of his ass that Andreas has yet to equal. Can Andreas meet the challenge? ? Will he? Let's see and hope so, especially if it can be done less expensively than the price of a XDS1.
In the meantime, I'm casing the local banks to figure out how to hit them at the right time so I don't get caught robbing them. Its the only way I'm gonna get one of those damn XDS1 CD players in my system permanently anytime soon.
I'm not sure that I truly get "jitter", or more specifically, what jitter sounds like. I know the CDSA is supposed to have very little, but the XDS1 is supposed to have less. I'm speculating, but I wonder if the further diminishment of jitter in the S1 accounts for the increased transparency that I heard? It was yet another step away from "digital" and towards "analogue". The reduction of grain was apparent across the board and was just mesmerizing. But voices in particular left my jaw slackened. (Cantante Domino, anyone?). I thought I had "good" before. With the S1, it was another step forward. There was simply less "grain" in everything I heard
A few other brief comments. The S1 is clearly better than the CDSA, the question is, is it worth 25K? I mean this is just nuts. A damn CD player for 25K. One can pick up a used CDSA for 6K. Is it really worth the additional money? Well, yes and no. Yes, in the sense that I haven't heard any other digital that is as musically correct and audibly pleasing. No, in the sense that I don't want to pay an inordinate amount of money for this difference. Unfortunately, until someone else can do what the S1 does, its not a matter of resenting the payment. It's a matter of can one be happy listening to the CDSA again? As I said earlier, damn you (or from a totally different mind set, thank you) Ed Meitner.
I have carefully compared the CDSA and the Playback Design unit previously. They are virtually sonically identical with the exception that the PD has a slightly better bottom end due to the superior TEAC transport used in it compared to the plastic tray and inexpensive transport used in the CDSA. But the XDS1 is now, for me, "the one". I have to bet that the performance of the XDS1 is driving Andreas and the folks at PD crazy trying to figure out how to meet or beat its performance in the PD line. Previously, the PD was just a CDSA on steroids (better bass, identical everywhere else, plus far greater flexibility as a DAC to use with any other source). But now, the difference between the XDS1 and both the PD or CDSA is a chasm. My hope is that if the PD folks can get comparable performance out of their next iteration of their PD to match the sound of the XDS1, it could happen at a friendlier price than 25K. At least we can hope so. But this will be interesting. The conventional wisdom is that it was Andreas that did all the digital algorithms for Meitner, so the PD should be the Meitner (CDSA) equal, which it is plus the aforementioned advantages. Well, the master now seems to have pulled something out of his ass that Andreas has yet to equal. Can Andreas meet the challenge? ? Will he? Let's see and hope so, especially if it can be done less expensively than the price of a XDS1.
In the meantime, I'm casing the local banks to figure out how to hit them at the right time so I don't get caught robbing them. Its the only way I'm gonna get one of those damn XDS1 CD players in my system permanently anytime soon.
Last edited:
Marty,
Very interesting post. When you auditioned, did you try any of the older, poorly recorded CDs? Was the "hardness"/ "flatness" eliminated or revealed as part of the player's goal of "transparency"?
Additionally, do you have any thoughts on Meridian and dCS in comparison to EMM/ Playback?
I too wonder how the Playback Design folks will be able to update the software to "keep up" or whether there will have to be a new box. However, pricewise, there currently is a chasm between the 2 players.
Thanks
Very interesting post. When you auditioned, did you try any of the older, poorly recorded CDs? Was the "hardness"/ "flatness" eliminated or revealed as part of the player's goal of "transparency"?
Additionally, do you have any thoughts on Meridian and dCS in comparison to EMM/ Playback?
I too wonder how the Playback Design folks will be able to update the software to "keep up" or whether there will have to be a new box. However, pricewise, there currently is a chasm between the 2 players.
Thanks
You can actually see on page 2 of their brochure some of the stuff Marty is talking about:
http://www.emmlabs.com/pdf/XDS1_brochure.pdf
http://www.emmlabs.com/pdf/XDS1_brochure.pdf
Actually I'm interested to hear what PD can do with their forthcoming player that will be 1/2 the price of the 5 
'Course there's some that think the EERA Tenation is the cat's meow today.
All I know is that in demos that I've heard, the PD-5 is the best digital player that I've heard. It has less of that "cold, analytical, digital" sound than any other player I've heard. In comparions did with Bruce Brown and Jonathan Tinn at CES and RMAF, the PD came close to the 15 ips tape. In addition, Bruce's super hi-Rez digitial files were the first time that I've heard, say on Muddy Water's Folk Singer, a hint of body to performers. All other players sound flat and dimensionless to me.
The dCS and Esoteric still has the digital sound IHMO. OTOH, that is based on show conditions and caveat emptor.
'Course there's some that think the EERA Tenation is the cat's meow today.All I know is that in demos that I've heard, the PD-5 is the best digital player that I've heard. It has less of that "cold, analytical, digital" sound than any other player I've heard. In comparions did with Bruce Brown and Jonathan Tinn at CES and RMAF, the PD came close to the 15 ips tape. In addition, Bruce's super hi-Rez digitial files were the first time that I've heard, say on Muddy Water's Folk Singer, a hint of body to performers. All other players sound flat and dimensionless to me.
The dCS and Esoteric still has the digital sound IHMO. OTOH, that is based on show conditions and caveat emptor.
I'm one of those meowing along with the EERA unfortunately it is CD only AND has no digital inputs. Bummer. My consolation is that my CD collection is 20 times larger than my SACD collection and that I still listen to LPs more than digital at home. Unless listening to audio samples at online stores count
Actually I'm interested to hear what PD can do with their forthcoming player that will be 1/2 the price of the 5
All I know is that in demos that I've heard, the PD-5 is the best digital player that I've heard. It has less of that "cold, analytical, digital" sound than any other player I've heard. In comparions did with Bruce Brown and Jonathan Tinn at CES and RMAF, the PD came close to the 15 ips tape. In addition, Bruce's super hi-Rez digitial files were the first time that I've heard, say on Muddy Water's Folk Singer, a hint of body to performers. All other players sound flat and dimensionless to me.
The dCS and Esoteric still has the digital sound IHMO. OTOH, that is based on show conditions and caveat emptor.
Myles, I have not heard the EERA yet. And I guess I don't really know what people mean by "analog sound". My reference is live music.
As I said in my other post, the Playback Designs player SMOKED the $80K dCS player on SACD. I know people talk about the virtues of the highs of PD, but the MPS 5 has pretty damn good bass and excellent PRAT. The dCS makes you think about the music, while PD makes the music so engaging to listen to and gets your foot tapping!
However, Playback Designs MPS-5 really comes up short on CD when compared to other state of the art digital. It has the great bass and PRAT, but sounds flat and "smooshed", whereas other top CD players do a better job separating out the instruments in 3 dimensional space. Looking at the picture from the EMM brochure this weakness may come from PD's inability to eliminate the pre and post ringing of the CD format.
http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...ll-you-PD-MPS-5-vs.-Boulder-1021-vs.-Scaratti
I have no doubt that when the MPS 5 is demoed, they are using the highest resolution digital source material they can find. (Wilson brings out Peter McGrath to the shows so he can demo the Wilson speakers with the best possible source materials for the same reasons! Is it Wilson or is it Peter McGrath?)
As for the new player, if the designer made the instruments stand in 3-dimensional space, it may surpass the MPS-5 in many areas.
Funny, RB digital played back with the PD doesn't hit me although did hear it at the shows. I know Dave Clark at PF (and David Robinson) own the PD-5 and don't remember them noticing this dichotomy between RB and SACD. I'll have to go back and reread their reviews.
If they didn't compare it to a player like a Meridian or dCS that uses the apodizing filter, this difference would not be apparent. And apodizing filters are fairly recent, also. I do applaud Fred Crowder, however, as I remember in his review he compared it to several other top players.
Hi Dafos,
The XDS1 is reportedly a whole different animal compared to it's predecessor, which come to think of it, I never heard either. I own the SE separates. If I were to characterize use of these players that I do have, I'd say if I had to scrutinize a recording I'd go with the CDSD-DCC2 and if I was just hanging out, beer in hand I'd go for the Eera. Actually that's what I'd been doing. The Emms are always rock solid and precise. The Eera has that dimensionality thing going. The DP-78 is filling in for the separates for SACD now. It might actually stay because it's also strapped to my server and it's got 192 capability while my old emms can only do 96.
The XDS1 is reportedly a whole different animal compared to it's predecessor, which come to think of it, I never heard either. I own the SE separates. If I were to characterize use of these players that I do have, I'd say if I had to scrutinize a recording I'd go with the CDSD-DCC2 and if I was just hanging out, beer in hand I'd go for the Eera. Actually that's what I'd been doing. The Emms are always rock solid and precise. The Eera has that dimensionality thing going. The DP-78 is filling in for the separates for SACD now. It might actually stay because it's also strapped to my server and it's got 192 capability while my old emms can only do 96.
A friend of mine recently purchased a Cary 303 T sacd/cd player. I wanted to bring home the demo model to compare to my ARC Ref CD 7 but at the dealers showroom, we compared the xds1 to the 303 and much as I wanted to the 303 to win or equal the performance of the xds1, it was not the case. So instead its a home audition of the wallet breaking xds1! Compared to the tube CD 7, the EMM dusts the latter in almost every criteria. Its clearer, faster, livelier, airier and has that sense of ease even that you get with sacd or high resolution formats when playing red book. Its not by any means analytical and I'd even say that it leans to the warm side of the sonic landscape. But not as warm or fat as the cd 7. Thing is, while the cd 7 is warmer sounding, it lacked the sense of ease and flow that comes so naturally with the EMM. Mmmm, a shootout with the EERA player should be interesting.
The manufacturers are learning more and more what's important: reading between the lines on the XDS1, they've got some key things right: get the power supply sorted out by using one of those "terrible" computer type switchmode supplies done properly, have it all in one box so jitter is eliminated, and minimise and get right the analogue circuitry. Give the industry another 10 years and they will finally have CD working properly, first time, every time ...
Frank
Frank
Internal parts; DACs (implementation, numbers, dual differential, balanced, ...), etc.,
plus its analog and digital stages, power supply, etc.?
Upsampling? How is the jitter reduced?
Links?
Thank you!
plus its analog and digital stages, power supply, etc.?
Upsampling? How is the jitter reduced?
Links?
Thank you!
All i know is 16/44.1 data is "upconverted" to twice the dsd sampling rate as opposed to the usual pcm upsampling. Analog stage uses all discrete devices and there's supposed to be only 1 gain stage from from the d/a stage to the analog outputs. I also read somewhere that it uses the highest model of the TEAC VOSP drive, which is a notch below the VRDS transport used in the more expensive Esoteric units.
Jack, AVDI claims to have sold 3 or 4 units na daw. Does your transport use the VRDS transport?
Jack, AVDI claims to have sold 3 or 4 units na daw. Does your transport use the VRDS transport?
Bob, some people may dispute this, but a one box player should have zero jitter problems if properly engineered. You simply place a crystal oscillator with as low phase noise as you want, directly translates to low jitter, right next to the DAC chip or circuitry and that controls all the clocking throughout the player. An incompetent engineer can still get it wrong, but it should be as straightforward as that.
Frank
- Status
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |