Digital replay. Have I experienced an epiphany, or just a healthy dose of reality?

[purite audio]

Marco isn't upsampling commonly used to increase the band width of the signal , I have had a couple of Audio Note Uk dacs and transports here, including an incredibly expensive signature DAC 5 ? The sound was soft and dull with both bass and h'f rolled off, I can see how this might appeal if your speakers are a bit harsh in the treble, not accusing the harbeths but many are!

[Filterlab]

As the high end roll-off is half of the upper sample rate limit I can see how more headroom would be offered by upsampling. However would it not be pseudo-headroom if the original signal is 44.1Khz?

[Marco]

Marco isn't upsampling commonly used to increase the band width of the signal , I have had a couple of Audio Note Uk dacs and transports here, including an incredibly expensive signature DAC 5 ? The sound was soft and dull with both bass and h'f rolled off, I can see how this might appeal if your speakers are a bit harsh in the treble, not accusing the harbeths but many are!

Hi Keith,

I may have read your post wrongly - are you saying that the AN DACs/transports sounded soft and dull? If so, that's completely contrary to my experience. At the Manchester hi-fi show I compared a 1.1x shown below with a DCS Scarlatti (yes indeed!) using the same CD (Bert Jansch 'The Black Swan') and it was the Scarlatti that sounded soft and dull! Also, my speakers are very neutral and highly revealing; indeed very similar to the Harbeth Monitor 40s Howard so cherishes. The SP100s are basically Spendor's version of the Monitor 40s, or perhaps it's the other
way round

http://www.audionote.co.uk/products/..._1.1x_01.shtml

Note the design principles used.

Marco.

[Marco]

As the high end roll-off is half of the upper sample rate limit I can see how more headroom would be offered by upsampling. However would it not be pseudo-headroom if the original signal is 44.1Khz?

I like "pseudo-headroom". I would also say 'pseudo-resolution and detail retrieval', using high quality Red Book (properly implemented) as a benchmark...

Marco.

[Filterlab]

Not a real term, but I couldn't think of anything more apt.

[Marco]

I know but it gets the point across rather succinctly.

Marco.

[purite audio]

Marco Hi, yes it was an expensive AN dac 5 or 6 ? £28k retail with a 3 transport, looks like a biscuit tin, I auditioned a lot of dacs and cdps trying to find a good product to sell, my little ACK is filterless and that is not dull or soft, this was a few years ago before I got the horn!

[Marco]

Keith,

I've not heard their top models but the 1.1x, which I think was about £2k, sounded really 'crisp', detailed, and 'alive', whereas the Scarlatti was overtly euphonic, smooth, and rounded off in comparison, which considering the truly massive difference in cost was frankly astounding! There's definitely something in filterless DACs, IMO.

However undoubtedly the partnering equipment and how the Scarlatti was set-up had a significant bearing on the sound. I've heard it perform much better, although the artificial sounding signature up-sampling imposes on the final signal was still very much in evidence.

Marco.

[purite audio]

Marco Hi, it is so difficult, partnering equipment makes such a difference , Rav kindly lent me a Scarlatti and I thought it rather good, really good treble I thought, I invited around a couple of friends to listen to a Lavry 924, and MSB Platinum, DCS Scarlatti and a £500 Ack, and although they agreed there was more resolution with the expensive products, they both thought they would be happier living with the filterless ACK!

[Mr. C]

Marco,

being fair sir, your speakers are hardly revealing.