DCS Verdi Elgar Purcell VS. Audio Aero Capitole

So now we're "upsampling to SACD" too?? It's amazing how effective marketing bull**** can be! Wasn't dCS the first to start using the "upsampling to 24/96" phrase? I'm inclined to believe what Verybigamp said above in his 2nd sentence about the qualities of dCS.

For those who are aware that "upsampling", as it has been used over the last few years is simply a marketing ploy, please disregard my next sentence. Folks, you cannot "upsample" to DVD-A and you cannot "upsample" to SACD. Furthermore, and technically speaking, any non-integer oversampling (eg. 44.1 -> 96 or 44.1 -> 192) has the potential to compromise the overall sound. Please read one of the many articles published regarding the marketing hype that is "upsampling". I recommend Sim Moons; it's very clear and readable for a layperson (and short too), but there are many others by Madrigal, Wadia, etc.
http://www.simaudio.com/technical.htm

Having said all of that, I own (and love) the Audio Aero Capitole 24/192. I have no pretensions that the very fine quality of sound I hear has anything to do with 192 or "upsampling". It is a very smooth and rich sounding player (some may call this analogue-like). It does many things very well, but it is not due to "upsampling". It is due to a good integral transport, good digital filtering and conversion, and a good analog section. Nothing more, nothing less.

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.

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.