Ian M
pfm Member
Wrong end of the stick, Ian M
Really, if you downsampled a studio master and there was no difference then you wasn’t listening hard enough.
Wrong end of the stick, Ian M
But it's not blank space in the case of audio upsampling. You are adding new interpolated data points between existing ones. This would be like figuring out new color to blend between pixels and fill the space in your example.Let’s take the analogy a little further: with a picture it would be easy to see the ‘added’ volumes of blank spaces between the colour. These spaces offer nothing but a bigger canvas and frame. If you were 20m away looking at the picture you’d not notice the white pixels between the colours.... In digital audio the same spaces that would be added by upsampling, add voids in the overall volume of the file. These spaces don’t contain any information in them but the file size becomes remarkably larger. There’s is an argument that these spaces allow extra dynamic/headroom in audio but in an image it would registered as a bleed of colour.
I suppose it’s a bit like trying to revert and MP3 into a FLAC/lossless file.
the extra resolution of the Dac is still digging out much more information at 44.1 16bit.
Really, if you downsampled a studio master and there was no difference then you wasn’t listening hard enough.
I see no point in upsampling or converting to DSD, in the same way as making the Mona Lisa twice the size or covering with a high gloss laquer.
NOS DACs do output stair-step waveforms, so higher sampling rates will lead to a "smoother" waveform, if you want to see it that way. But I'm not sold on the technical side of NOS myself.
You are adding new interpolated data points between existing ones
It's still blank data, you can't add something thats not there.
It's not blank data. It's interpolating the existing points using one of a variety of methods to create new points.It's still blank data, you can't add something thats not there.
My understanding is that the increased dynamic range also benefits the noise floor. My experience is that SACD is generally better than CD because instruments have more shape, body and texture and the whole thing just feels more alive. I doubt this difference is down to mastering. Whether it is down to resolution, noise, or what, I couldn’t say, but it’s worth it to me.Since 16 bit already allows for 96dB of dynamic range, why would going up to 120dB (24 bit) make any difference? I certainly don’t play my stereo that loud, which would be required in order to theoretically hear the extra resolution from the 24 bits, and even then I’m not aware of any commercial sound recordings with that much dynamic range either. No one says this in the hi-fi industry because it’s all just a business and they need new bandwagons to sell the Mk2 DAC etc.
Due to the above, my view is that 24 bit audio is an inaudible technical bauble.
My understanding is that the increased dynamic range also benefits the noise floor. My experience is that SACD is generally better than CD because instruments have more shape, body and texture and the whole thing just feels more alive. I doubt this difference is down to mastering. Whether it is down to resolution, noise, or what, I couldn’t say, but it’s worth it to me.
My understanding is that the increased dynamic range also benefits the noise floor. My experience is that SACD is generally better than CD because instruments have more shape, body and texture and the whole thing just feels more alive. I doubt this difference is down to mastering. Whether it is down to resolution, noise, or what, I couldn’t say, but it’s worth it to me.