Best Digital Source That Money Can Buy?

Jb0194, your original vote for the dCS Scarlatti had no "might be" in it. You agreed with Newly, who was writing in absolute terms, specifically mentioning other brands that he had no doubt that the dCS was superior to. He's not reappeared here to verify that he'd actually listened to the others that he named. You now say as much now. So, your unequivical agreement with Newly must have indeed been baseless.

This is not a magazine where we're "paid" for our opinions and there's a code of ethics, but generally when we say something like, "this is better than that" then we will have some basis for making a statement like that. If you say, "I've heard people say this is better than that" then we'll know that you don't know and your passing along hearsay. That's ok. If you've heard the two pieces and you prefer one to the other, then it's entirely ok to say you like one better than the other and it can be really useful if you explain why. In your case, by virtue of agreeing with Newly, you indicated that you agreed that the dCS was better than the Playback Designs, when you hadn't heard the PD.

That's all I'm pointing out.

I can't understand your last paragraph. If you'd like me to try to answer it, would you rephrase it?

Dave

Mrt, I'm not interested in defining "improve" to you. You started that line and I'm not going down that road. You think that any change is an improvement, I must conclude from you examples. That's your perogative and I'm glad that you made that clear.

Dave

#1 Dcstep states: "So, your unequivical agreement with Newly must have indeed been baseless."

In the first item of my 8-31-08 posting I clarified very specifically the extent to which I agreed with Newly. What about the phrase, "nothing more, nothing less" continues to elude you?

#2 To Dcstep: Your own statement, "This is not a magazine where we're "paid" for our opinions and there's a code of ethics, but generally when we say something like, "this is better than that" then we will have some basis for making a statement like that.", is all you should need to understand the last paragraph of my last posting. I hope (but will not assume, in this instance) that you know that the paragraph I appended to my "baseless claim" earlier today was copied from the initial response posted to this thread. Oops, my bad - I substituted "dCS Scarlatti DAC" for "MPS-5".

We both claim a product "might be on another level compared with ANYTHING ELSE OUT THERE" (my emphasis). Of course we both added that, in fact, we haven't actually heard everything in our systems. Oh, (and this will be of particular interest to you, I'm sure) I deliberately kept the word "might" rather than substituting "is", to further render my claim immune to debunking. Note: ONLY I acted deliberately here.

Neither I nor the first respondent has written a bold faced lie; yet, are our claims any LESS subjective than would be Newly's even if he's done the comparisons you're so fixated on?

And since you (not me) chose to bring ethics into the discussion, one final question, Dcstep: If I told you I also deliberately worded my claim to maximize it's potential boost to Scarlatti sales because I've gotten to know a few people at Audiophile Systems Ltd and want to help them sell more of these expensive units in a difficult economy, would I be in violation of the "code of ethics" to which you refer?

Jb0194, you responded to a phantom post on 8/31. Maybe that's the source of your confusion. If you equivicated your agreement with Newly, I've missed it. (I couldn't make sense of that response of yours because the subject post no longer exists, evidently.)

You can make almost any statements you want here so long as they're civil. If you want to be helpful to others you'll not use absolutes unless they're appropriate. Anyone reading this thread can easily evaluate you opinion.

So far as supporting dCS, there's nothing wrong with that, so long as you have no financial interest. If you do have a financial interest you should disclose it, IMHO, but you're not obligated to that standard. There's a reason that Reviewers, Dealers and Manufacturers disclose their status here. Enthusiasts are allowed to be just that, unbridled enthusiasts.

It's well know that I'm a Rowland, Playback Designs and Pro-ject enthusiast. If I make comparisons, I limit it to things that I've actually seen and heard. Since Newly's head is down, I don't think that is the case with him or her.

Dave

Dcstep - Below is a copy of the post I responded to on 08-31-08 (my bad - it IS still in the queue):

>>>Mikelavigne
JB0194, you mention that you agree with Newly.....

are you saying that you think that the DCS Puccini is 'best' compared to the others that Newly mentioned.....which infers he has compared these units?

Without any doubt the best today available digital front is dCS Scarlatti, forget Payback designs, EMM labs, Zanden and others toys, I dont own it, but if one day I have the money..., and sorry I have one EMM labs combo that is vey good

or that you really like the Puccini and prefer it to others you have heard?

these are two quite different things to say. i am still waiting for Newly to answer DCstep's question about whether Newly has actually compared the Puccini to those he mentions or is he just guessing.....specifically has he compared the Puccini to the Playback Designs (which has only been on the market since mid-June).

btw; the Puccini may be best but i have not done any comparisons to venture an opinion about that.<<<

Dcstep: I particularly enjoyed Mikelavigne's "or is he just guessing" comment, in light of Mikelavigne's own "the MPS-5 might be on another level compared with anything out there" remark. Also, ignore his mistaken reference to "Puccini" though it is, arguably, the dCS digital source most similar to his "horse".

Now, I again invite you to address all questions in my last post. I've tried very hard to specific with you. Please repay me in kind. I respectfully suggest that you copy and paste each question, then add your answer - it'll help you to focus.