I'm wondering where you picked that up, and trying to figure out in what way you suspect oversampling may improve matters?
What Mark Levinson mentioned among other was what he called the PCM step function (at least I'm hoping to quote him correctly). It's probably true of all migraine patients that to be exposed to a stroboscope is a trigger. Mark wondered if people with this sensitivity wouldn't have an easier time listening to DSD than PCM.
He may be onto something, but I'm not sure it's that easy. When I listen to a dCS DAC playing back DSD using Filter 1 (roughly 90kHz), I'm noticing I'm feeling less relaxed than using their new Filter 5 they added in Version 2.0 - pointing to out-of-band noise as one possible problem. The earlier passively filtered Lampizator DSD board also sounded completely free of whatever we want to call this quality, even if at the cost of some treble extension (actually, I hear differences in treble extension in the dCS filter choices as well, but nowhere as extreme).
Referring to the early Lampizator DSD board, I'm reminded of a cheap passively filtered PCM DAC I loved and gave away, or the Kondo measurement protocol that showed rolloff at either end of the frequency range (which, as microstrip mentions further above, makes it sound less extended) - it's true I'd consider that a lesser price to pay for being able to enjoy music over long periods of time if indeed it were the only possible solution.
Maybe when others refer to "listening fatigue", they're referring to the exact same as I do, yet they're simply more immune? It's true that when I first bought dCS, it was because I heard it at a trade fair where Alfred Rudolph of Acapella used a Delius and Purcell combo as source component, and I noticed how relaxed I felt. No flinching as it were. No muscular tension.
I have no problem admitting that to me, this has priority over how "beautiful" playback sounds. It does occasionally make me wonder if those who can listen to repulsive digital playback are truly nonsensitive, or if they would notice if they paid attention. Be that as it may, I can't speak for others…
I'm wondering if this whole discussion is off-topic, then again, I believe it can't be because these are clearly flaws in the playback and not the music. In the same vein as I don't understand how people can work in offices lighted by fluorescent tubes, I don't think DACs are supposed to add anything whatsoever of their own to music playback, even if the happy nonsensitive do not feel bothered.
Having said that, I understand this may be thought of as having nothing to do with what's commonly called "sound", if a majority can't tell a difference. So maybe these considerations don't belong here.
Greetings from Switzerland, David.
While there certainly are differences between DACs in terms of listenability, "digititis" and listening fatigue, it is often not just simply solely about the DAC. Things are more complex than just one component, even though a DAC is obviously important.
After my system upgrades two and a half years ago, visitors who heard my system tended to complain about just that, "digititis" and treble issues, and a hard and harsh sound. While I was less sensitive when it came to that, they most certainly had a point.
Yet it turns out it was not the DAC, which at least I had assumed to at least partially be the culprit, even though I am a long term fan of digital and did not quite share the same sensitivities as my vinyl loving friends. Their criticism, however, did make me more sensitive to the issues over time.
As I described above, the issues were of an acoustic nature, and there were also problems elsewhere in the electronic chain, with my previous passive preamp which was replaced by an Octave HP 700.
When it came to acoustics, the effect of installing ceiling diffusers was particularly profound. I could not believe how much of HF distortions they removed from my room! (I have to point out though that my ceiling was particularly problematic, in other rooms the effect of ceiling diffusers may be less drastic.) The preamp change revealed far more treble purity than I had suspected my DAC could deliver in my system. All in all, the problem is now solved to a very large degree.
A vinyl loving friend, who was sensitive to the issues in my room, now alternates between voicing no complaints at all and finding that any problems have at least been greatly mitigated, which sounds about right. He also appears to experience much less listening fatigue than before.
I do know that my DAC is capable of even more pure treble, which triggers no sensitivities of "digititis" whatsoever, at least to my ears. In another friends' system (who uses the exact same digital set-up as mine, not just the DAC) it sounds through speakers where the tweeter is even better than the already very good one of my speakers. Also, while his ceiling gives problems as well, it does not cause the drastic HF distortions that mine did, and from which undoubtedly a trace remains in my room even after installation of the ceiling diffusers.
***
So yes, the DAC itself is important, but adverse interactions within the system and with the room can cause a toxic cocktail that can make it seem that the digital is at fault even when it is not.
So when you enter a room with a system that is unknown to you, you cannot stand the sound, and ascribe the fatigue to the DAC, think again. It may be the DAC, yes, but it may be also be other factors -- either partially or entirely.
I suspect that for some unclear reason vinyl does not expose room/system problems in quite the same ruthless manner as digital does.
***
(For the sake of accuracy I should mention that between ceiling diffusers and preamp change I upgraded the Yggdrasil DAC from version 1 to the current version 2. Yet based on several data points I have to assume that this upgrade had a much smaller effect on treble quality and lack of listening fatigue than the other changes to room and system mentioned.)
