DCS Verdi Elgar Purcell VS. Audio Aero Capitole

DCS never was top 16-bit digital. It has better publicity, more 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. In particularly DCS DACs works miserably when they do upsampling… If you looking at the top 16-bit performance (and I am taking about the out of box commercially available units without going into a world of the custom built DACs) then you might find interesting some older DB technology DAC (I think it is 924). Also, the new Waiss Media sounds pretty promising…

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.

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.