Anyone care to share differences besides OS vs NOS?
Below is extract from enjoythemusic.com review of MDHT Paradisea DAC, which answer your question about OS vs NOS, full article see:
http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/equipment/0406/mhdt_laboratory_dac.htm*********************************************************************
A Non-Statement About Digital Sampling Rates
In the realm of digital to analog conversion, there are hugely differing opinions as to which method of conversion sounds the best. We have non-oversampling (as is the case with the Mhdt Labs DAC's), we have oversampling and we have upsampling (notice I left out SACD as I'm only speaking of Redbook).
The camps out there will each defend their chosen sampling procedures to the death (if need be). I've found that each of them can sound quite good when done well or quite bad when done poorly. In my case, I've got the AH! Njoe Tjoeb which allows me to use the stock output of the Philips TDA 1545 along with the OPA2604 (or the AD 826) opamp or I can drop in the 24/192 upsampling board if I so desire.
As for my preference in sampling rates, I like them both, but I vacillate. I'll go for a while listening to the stock, NOS chip and then I'll get a wild hair and install the upsampling board and listen to it for a few months. Then I get bored and yank the board back out for something different. As you can tell, I really don't have a preference. I sort of sway with the prevailing winds. I just like the breeze.
When it comes to the sonic differences between the two sampling rates, hopefully I can explain them without causing some sort of flame war or getting too many email bombs. The upsampled units that I've heard tend to exude a large amount of (apparent) detail. I said ‘apparent' because of the mathematic interpolation an upsampler does. The upsampler samples the information on a CD and then ‘approximates' the additional detail through a complicated algorithm. Upsampling (as I understand it) stretches the data points apart (of sorts) and fills in the gaps with approximated data, smoothing the data stream curve. The end result is, the upsampled signal that comes out of your speakers supposedly has higher resolution. You hear more detail, there is a greater breathiness to the sound on your CD. As I stated earlier, done well, upsampling can sound very good. Done poorly, it can sound like cats mating. Upsampling can also bring the soundstage quite a bit more forward into your room. And yes, just ‘average' upsampling can be quite harsh, fatiguing and can have a definite digital sheen to it.
In a back to back comparison between the two, non-oversampling can sound a bit dull and lacking in detail. But, after your ears become accustomed to the non-oversampled chip, you begin to understand that the presentation becomes far more relaxed and less aggressive. I hate to use this term but it sounds less forced. In essence, less digital sounding. Even though it isn't vinyl, it contains a few more of its qualities (IMO) than its higher resolution cousin, upsampling.
I guess what I'm getting at is the differing sampling rates are ultimately a personal preference. Each can sound quite good when done properly. If you want some seriously technical information regarding sampling rates, do a Google search using "upsampling vs. oversampling" as the search parameter. You'll get enough reading material to keep you going for weeks on end.
