DCS Verdi Elgar Purcell VS. Audio Aero Capitole

dCS components do not upsample to SACD. Nothing can do that. They do convert the digital signal to Direct Stream Digital (DSD), and then use firewire as a transmission method between components. Anyone who has any experience with firewire or I2S cables between digital components knows how much more effective these types of connections are for the transmission of digital information. I2S or firewire are the only true methods of transmitting a 24/192 signal, unless you use the dCS method of using two XLR cables between the upsampler and DAC, as dCS does with the non-Plus version of the Elgar and Purcell. If you would refer to the dCS website at www.dcsltd.co.uk, you would see that nowhere do they claim to be upsampling to SACD.

As far as your statement about non-integer oversampling, dCS and many other DACs give you the option of interger oversampling at 88.2 or 176.4, unlike the Capitole. I have compared those settings with 24/192, and prefer 24/192.

I have owned 2 different DACS that use the Anagram Technologies resampler....the Audiomeca Enkianthus and the Camelot Uther Mk2 V4. The smooth, relaxed, and detailed sound of the Anagram Technologies resampler was present in both of those products. Whether you like it or not, you have upsampling, and it IS responsible at least in part for what you're hearing. If not, then Audio Aero's claims about S.T.A.R.S. and it's effects must just be marketing bull****!

Now you will have to excuse me. My pterodactyl is getting cold.
Glreno, I think you missed my point. What is the significance of "upsampling" to 96kHz, or to 192kHz for that matter? Why not 220.5kHz(5X), or 264.6kHz(6X) or even better yet 352.8kHz(8X)? The ONLY reason for choosing 96 or 192 is due to its name association with the higher resolution format in DVD-A. Is it a coincidence that "upsampling" popped up in the consumer market after all the hoopla of DVD-A's 24/96 or 24/192???

Why add complexity by "upsampling" by a non-integer value? It just makes the mathematics more complicated and wastes processing cycles. If done properly, it probably won't mess up the fidelity, but it WON'T make it any better either.

Yes, I think the Audio Aero Capitole 24/192 uses the 192 for marketing reasons only. It does have a 32bit processor, so maybe they feel they can waste clock cycles for the marketing boost. In the end, to me it is a very good sounding CD Player and not because it has 192 on the face plate. A player, any player, will sink or swim on the quality of its transport, the quality of its digital filtering and conversion, the quality of its reconstruction filter, and the quality of its analog stage. Forget about 96 or 192 and pick the best sounding component.
You say, "Forget about 96 or 192 and pick the best sounding component." Yet your post dismiss the dCS units because of "theory" rather than listening.

Moreover, you reduce the dCS to just upsampling (and dismiss it for that alone) while excusing the Audio Aero for having the same feature, choosing to look to its other features besides the upsampling. I take it that any dCS system lacks a quality transport, digital filtering, conversion, analogue stage, etc? At least with the dCS, if upsampling is so useless, one can run the dCS completely bypassing any upsampling. So now in theory the Audio Aero is at a disadvantage?

This thread shows many different opinions on high-end DACs. Some have compared components, some have not but really like what they already have, and some have a self-interest in promoting certain components. Where does the truth lie? At this level I think that the differences are more of personal taste than an objective better or worse.
Turnaround, I haven't dismissed dCS. I'm frustrated that a simple marketing trick can cause so many of us to part with our hard earned cash. AND I'm not talking about just dCS, although they were one of the early ones to play the game.

If you don't think that many (certainly not all) audiophiles purchase partly based on the current buzz, then perhaps there is not much to discuss between you and me. "Upsampling" created a frenzy over the last 4 years and it ("upsampling") is exactly the same thing digital designers have been doing for years with one exception... now marketing tricks are used to play off the association between 96 and 192 and the higher resolution format on the horizon, DVD-A. It certainly energized the Redbook format, wouldn't you agree? I can't count how many times I've read A-goner's write here how "now that I have an upsampling dac, I don't care what becomes of the high rez formats" [sic].

What really stinks about this to me is that it takes even greater computing power just to achieve a similar level of fidelity as a basic integer upsampler/oversampler. Why waste the resources when they could be applied for more accurate interpolation or used somewhere else in the chain? Computing power is cheap nowadays, I guess that's why.

Now, unfortunately, many good products/mfg's have decided to waste resources for the sake of being on the "upsampling" wagon. Based on the response from the audiophile public, can we blame them? From the beginning the implication has been that "upsampling" is fundamentally different (and better) from oversampling and we as consumers have never called these mfg's and reviewers on it. What IS the difference? Why WOULD oversampling at 4.353741497 times the sample frequency be better than oversampling at 4 times, or 8 times or whatever???!!! The math IS alot harder, so it's somehow better?

Don't be fooled by turning off upsampling on the dCS. I'm sure it is a very good sounding component, but it is what it is by design. If you "turn off" a digital filter (this is what an upsampler or oversampler is basically), then you certainly will change the sound and if it was designed to be used with both sets of filters, it'll likely sound worse.
Verybigampmore. Who THe Hell are you!!!!!!!! BS-presents in the audio propaganda but performance wise it sit somewhere at the very mediocre Wadia-Levinson level. "As usually, it has that glitzy but dry impressiveness meant to electrify a typical audiophile with itÂ’s taste of pterodactyl" as you quoted. I personally take your post offensively. As I see it, someone asked a question and you basically downed Wadia-Levison as being dinosaurs and "typical audiophyles", what exactly do you consider us to be? Is it someone that does not have your equipment? Someone who hears equipment different than you do? Don't define a "typical audiophile", because everyone here hears different things, wants different sounds, and have different budgets. There is no "typical audiophile" as you put it. Everyone has their opinion of what makes music great, and you have no right to put us all in a "typical audiophile" category. I for one think I have a great system, using a Wadia, as you would state being at the medicore level, and am extremely satisified with my system. I guess that means I am a "typical audiophile". Next time why don't you answer the post that's been asked. If you did answer the post that was asked I certainly do not see it. I see someone getting up on a soap box to talk about nothing. Again, I take offense at your post. In my opinion, there is no "typical audiophile", other than people that are at this site that love music most in life. Most of the people here love audio, give good input on posts, and post subjective reviews. I don't see this as one of them. I'm not sure exactly where you were going with your post, but Wadia-Levison is FAR from mediocre. And for some audiophiles, even more out of reach than maybe a simple Arcam, which by itself, is a great cd player at its price point. Regardless of price, we're all in it because we love it. What works for me may not work for you, but don't categorize us as typical.