Tweet
I've heard when editing photos there is a benefit to upsample the bit depth prior to doing any editing, at least in the early years of digital photography. I've always wondered if the same was true with digital audio. If I have a 16 bit file, is it worth upsampling to 24 and then running the filters?
-
-
Up-sampling the resolution will provide no benefit. But, it does improve the impulse filter performance if you start with a higher sampling rate file. For example, if the goal is to make a CD, (which is 44.1 KHz 16 bits), it helps to make the transfer at a higher sampling rate (no benefit in a higher resolution). The higher sampling rate provides more information to the various impulse noise algorithms in order for better discrimination between signal and impulse noise. After the impulse filters have been run, you can down sample to 44.1 kHz and the remaining filters will work equally well as they would have worked at the higher sampling rate.
Craig"Who put orange juice in my orange juice?" - - - William Claude Dukenfield -
I actually misspoke and should have said effects, not filters. It makes sense filters wouldn't see any benefit, but would an effect such as the VVA "render" better at the higher bit rate?Comment
-
Using the VVA as an example, the harmonic distortion products would distribute higher on the frequency spectrum with a higher sampling rate. But, at 44.1 kHz, it is already producing harmonics as high as 22 kHz. If you worked with a file sampled at 96 kHz, the VVA would produce harmonics as high as 48 kHz. I do not know about you, but I can not hear anything above around 15 kHz, so what would be the point? Perhaps a dog would hear the difference, but not a human being.
Craig"Who put orange juice in my orange juice?" - - - William Claude DukenfieldComment
-
It is worth stating that the standard audio spectrum definition for human hearing is considered to be 20 Hz to 20 kHz.
Craig"Who put orange juice in my orange juice?" - - - William Claude DukenfieldComment
Comment