Upsampling 16/44.1 collection a good idea?

[PuX]

no gain, no losing. i make the same only because i use convolver , and this require fixed samplerate.

I assure you there is loss when converting 44.1->48
it involves a floating point calculation (how many 44.1s can you fit in 48? more than 1, less than 2) and no matter how good SoX is, playing at original rate is better.
if you were talking about a significant improvement, maybe it would be fine (88.2 or 96, although again I think 88.2 would be better since it is divisible by 44.1).

 

[danadam]

I assure you there is loss when converting 44.1->48

Article: Is It Time To Rethink Lossless?

View full article

audiophilestyle.com

(it's about 16/44k -> 24/192k -> 16/44k, but for that example it works the same with 16/44k -> 24/48k -> 16/44k)

 

[DVDdoug]

The basic philosophy of "high fidelity" is to faithfully reproduce the sound recording. A lot of people like to keep the digital "bit perfect", and up-sampling is altering the data.

But sometimes you might want to change the sound and sometimes there is something wrong with the recording.

There are much better ways to "improve" or "enhance" the sound, starting with better/different speakers or EQ. And unlike up-sampling the changes don't have to be subtle or inaudible. Or you can up-mix to surround sound. I use a soundfield setting on my AVR for some delayed reverb in the rear to give the "feel" of a larger space. With an audio editor or DAW you also add reverb or use an exciter effect, compression, expansion, etc. (Or there are hardware processors intended for pro use.)

 

[Ze Frog]

Me personally, I find CD quality perfect. When I very briefly dabbled with streaming I couldn't tell the difference, to me the 'hi-res' thing is just another hook to make people anxious that they are missing something that they aren't.

 

[fieldcar]

Wow. Very interesting "conversation" we're having here.

Oh.... Say, what's your sensitivity to harmonic distortion? -20dB? -30dB? -40dB?

120dB you say? Oh, wow. That's pretty impressive.

Let me know how close you get with the Klippel test.

Listening Test

www.klippel.de

Fun article about resampling and blind testing:

RESULTS: Internet Blind Test of 24-Bit vs. Dithered 16-Bit Part Deux - Daft Punk Edition

A blog for audiophiles about more objective topics. Measurements of audio gear. Reasonable, realistic, no snakeoil assessment of sound, and equipment.

archimago.blogspot.com

 

[fieldcar]

44.1 vs 48KHz resample

The delta is about -138dB with the exception of the large change at the varying nyquist limit and dithering noise floor.

Unless your DAC is broken, this is just a complete waste of time.

 

[fatoldgit]

My understanding from minds greater than mine is you need to upsample to the native max rate of your DAC

This avoids double dipping.

So if your DAC resamples everything to 768, then thats what you upsample to in your PC (and leave your files as they are in cause you change DACs)

Peter

 

[melomane13]

i have a good raison to upsample / downsample ( but not have any "hd" files") to 48khz.
of course, isn't for the quality, but for simplicity.
my dsp ( camilladsp ) run at 48khz and i use convolver. convolver required fixed sample rated, so i set all to 48khz and it is perfectly ok. resampling is perfectly transparent

 

[krabapple]

Simply: no. Not a good or bad idea. Just pointless.

If you have an AVR , it is almost certainly resampling anyway. And if not, still no benefit to upsampling.

 

[melomane13]

I assure you there is loss when converting 44.1->48
it involves a floating point calculation (how many 44.1s can you fit in 48? more than 1, less than 2) and no matter how good SoX is, playing at original rate is better.
if you were talking about a significant improvement, maybe it would be fine (88.2 or 96, although again I think 88.2 would be better since it is divisible by 44.1).

resampling or downsampling is not a problem, distortion is at -140db. can you here -140 db of thd?

 

[melomane13]

Simply: no. Not a good or bad idea. Just unnecessary.

for quality is not necessary, for sound traitement is necessary

 

[krabapple]

for quality is not necessary, for sound traitement is necessary

Huh? Any competent 'treatment' gear is going to resample as necessary.

 

[melomane13]

Huh? Any competent 'treatment' gear is going to resample as necessary.

i use camilladsp and convolver. do you think is not competent?

 

[PuX]

Article: Is It Time To Rethink Lossless?

View full article

audiophilestyle.com

(it's about 16/44k -> 24/192k -> 16/44k, but for that example it works the same with 16/44k -> 24/48k -> 16/44k)

don't know how good of comparison that is. my expectation is that this will not be bit-perfect.

 

[NTK]

Huh?

i use camilladsp and convolver. do you think is not competent?

To add more context to Melomane's reply ... The sampling rate of the impulse response for the FIR filter and the sampling rate of the music/sound source must be the same for convolution to work. Therefore, the sampling rate of source will have to be converted to the sampling rate of the FIR impulse response if they are different.

 

[melomane13]

don't know how good of comparison that is. my expectation is that this will not be bit-perfect.

yes, downsample 24/96 to 16/44.1 dither / noise shape , when upsample to 24/96 is not bit perfect, but you can't hear nothing wrong. try by yourself.

 

[krabapple]

i use camilladsp and convolver. do you think is not competent?

If you have constructed a Rube Goldberg signal chain that literally requires you to add a separate upsampling step, that's on you.

 

[MRC01]

... My research convinced me that with extremely well implemented DeltaSigma DACs, any sample rate conversion would be not be necessary.

Indeed.

Many DACs already upsample at integer multiples (typically 4x or more) before conversion. They do this automatically and internally. There is no point to doing this yourself and rewriting the files, because your DAC is already doing it in real-time as you play the files.

 

[melomane13]

If you have constructed a Rube Goldberg signal chain that literally requires you to add a separate upsampling step, that's on you.

it is clear than you don't know how work convolution.
NTK have explained you here. https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...4-1-collection-a-good-idea.53641/post-1943511

 

[Chrispy]

Ever hear of batch conversion?

Sure, use it now and then but I use it to convert flac to mp3 for my truck's head unit that won't do flac. Waste of time to do what you propose still as there's no benefit and no reason to take up all the extra storage space.