Up and Over sampling EXACTLY the same thing

I agree, Phild... we need to evaluate equipment on how it sounds and not (for the most part) on the technology used to get there. As far as your new DAC, digital filters have no doubt gotten better (and I believe will continue to get better), but in the end the performance of the product is purely dependent on the designers skill in implementing the whole package (digital and analog).

The method is the same for both up/over sampling. I think some manufacturers latched on to the high rez format buzz words of 24/96, 24/192 and just performed a small integer (or non-integer in the case of redbook CD to 96 or 192) up/over sampling in the first digital filter, followed by a standard 4x or 8x up/over sampling in the second digital filter. As the article states, if you add another digital filter it WILL change the sound for better or worse, depending on the computational power and sophistication of the filter. I also found it interesting that using two digital filters in series is a cheaper way to achieve a certain technical spec.

Is anyone else troubled by the statement in the article, "but the public really wants something like this. It's like trying to sell a seven-year-old on Santa Claus -- it doesn't take much selling."? It ticks me off!

The Audio Note DACs don't up- or over-sample, I believe, and they sound great. So you're right, go by your ears.

Finally someone mentions this here in an enlightened manner,
although, even with this, many audiophiles will not give up their misconceptions,
and dealers that sell hype will always be happy to keep the misconceptions going $.

I find it interesting that the statement "we need to evaluate equipment on how it sounds and not on the technology used to get there" is being put forward by someone who clearly understands the technology well.

If this statement is taken to mean that people can get drawn in by marketing hype around techie words, then I agree. If this statement means that performance should be evaluated based upon sonics and not on design, then I disagree. Case in point - The shoot-out between VHS and Beta format is a fascinating technology story. Warms my heart to know that R&D can really break through what look like fundamental performance barriers. I will always hold out hope for digital play back, and want to know the story along the way.

Just ordered a Belcanto DAC2 – and now this! Are they really the same? I doubt. My imagination is that oversampling is a linear interpolation from one sample to the next, in 4 or 8 steps, while the interpolation from upsampling is of a sine-wave shape created by coresponding algorithms. Well, I can't pretend that I'm right on this.

Anyway, it's obvious that a conversion from 44.1 to 96 or 192 kHz isn't just oversampling in the mentioned way; there had to be 88.2 or 176.4 kHz. It's first of all a sampling conversion. I don't know if there's any advantage from that, but it surely is different from common oversampling.

And according to German magazines it sounds clearly better than with normal CD-Players' (oversampling) techniques. The reviews refer to DCS Purcell/Delius + Elgar, Chord DAC 64, Electrocompaniet ECD 1 and Musical Fidelity A 3-24. Especially the DCS combo is said to be very close to the hi-rez formats. If there is a possibility to switch between upsampling and non-upsampling, the difference is clearly in favor of the former.