Up and Over sampling EXACTLY the same thing

There have been plenty of threads on this topic before. I don't remember the explanation, but yeah...if I recall correctly, they're essentially the same thing achieved by different methods (I think??). I'm one of the people that could care less as long as it sounds good. I do know that my new-ish DAC sounds better than my old Studer CDP, but I don't know if that's due to upsampling or not.

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 $.