DCS Verdi Elgar Purcell VS. Audio Aero Capitole

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 it’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.

hi germanboxers, you write:

"If you "turn off" a digital filter ... 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."

(as clarification, the dcs system is made up of three separate units, a dac, an upsampler and a transport, which came out in that order and years apart.)

stereophile wrote about upsampling some years back when the dcs purcell (the upsampler unit) was new and on their "hot" list. they didn't have definitive answers about how or why upsampling seemed to improve sound, but they hypothesized that it wasn't upsampling per se but that upsampling allows the use of certain filters that cannot be applied to red book 16/44.1.

if that is the case, then this suggests that upsampling by itself isn't the secret sauce: the quality of the digital filters and other other factors in the component still matter ... just that some of those factors might only be possible with upsampling in the mix. but we certainly don't need that stereophile article to know the importance of factors like the quality of the analogue outs, the transport, and so on.

here, one could make an analogy to someone thinking that a $200 sacd player will always beat a $5000 red book player because dsd itself is the secret sauce (and especially if that someone makes the mistake of comparing an sacd of an originally poor recording against a cd of a state-of-the-art recording).

what these dicussions and disagreements on upsampling show, i think, is that no one has the definitive answer. at least, it seems that no one's come up with that one explanation which most audiphiles and manufacturers can agree on. however, just because someone can't explain X doesn't mean that Not X is true, especially when X can be heard, if not broken down in words. absent a clear answer of X or Not X, blame must cut both ways, to people preaching upsampling as gospel and to people preaching upsampling as useless.

while there might be people who buy into a component solely because the manufacturer sells up the upsampling angle, i think that people are smart enough to realize that two upsampling dacs differing in price by 10x aren't exactly cut from the same cloth in the many, many factors that make for good sound.

unfortunately, i can imagine people dismissing upsampling all together because a cheap upsampling unit they tried out didn't sound so hot. seems like the same mistake as buying into a component just because it upsamples. here, one could make an analogy to someone dismissing sacd because that $200 sacd player didn't sound better than the very well built red book player (and again, the materials used for comparison matter too).

advertising "hype" aside, i can agree with you on this: i should hope that an audiophile buying dcs or any other high priced gear take some time to listen and make their buying decision based on that, rather than just upsampling "hype".

The Lindemann continues to provide a fertile ground for experimentation, particularly with respect to mechanical isolation which seems to have a dramatic effect on sonics. A few characteristics remain constant. The unit has a liquidity in the midrange and a musical naturalness that I find sorely lacking in most of the competition which makes it very easy to listen to for extended periods. Coupled with that is the ability to penetrate the musical texture and reveal music's subtle inner details, especially throughout the midrange without distortion or harshness. There is, however, a very slight softening of the uppermost treble which does not effect cymbals and their overtones but which is audible. I think that this may yield to better isolation and a change in cabling; only further experimentation will tell.