Comments on: Visual Analogy to High Definition Sample Rate Conversion http://thestereobus.com/2010/01/02/visual-analogy-to-high-definition-sample-rate-conversion/ Music production, pro audio and engineering tips & secrets. Fri, 30 Dec 2011 08:21:22 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Dan Connor http://thestereobus.com/2010/01/02/visual-analogy-to-high-definition-sample-rate-conversion/comment-page-1/#comment-12166 Dan Connor Fri, 21 Jan 2011 02:31:36 +0000 http://thestereobus.com/?p=208#comment-12166 Yeah, MBIT+ is a great dithering algorithm. I doubt the sound would be smoother perse. I associate smoothness more with bit depth than sample rate. If anything I think the dithered conversion would be smoother, as the photo is smoother, but the undithered conversion would be clearer. But I suspect the ultra-high frequencies might be less smeared going from 88.2 to 44.1. I don't have any gear that produces tones above 22khz, so I doubt I'd hear much. The high sample rates are definitely worth it to reduce any resonances or harmonics introduced by a low-pass filter, but you'll end up with artifacts if you have to dither the result. The point is that for 88.2 to 44.1 you just throw away half the samples and you get exactly what would have been recorded at 44.1, if I understand it correctly. Yeah, MBIT+ is a great dithering algorithm. I doubt the sound would be smoother perse. I associate smoothness more with bit depth than sample rate. If anything I think the dithered conversion would be smoother, as the photo is smoother, but the undithered conversion would be clearer. But I suspect the ultra-high frequencies might be less smeared going from 88.2 to 44.1.

I don’t have any gear that produces tones above 22khz, so I doubt I’d hear much. The high sample rates are definitely worth it to reduce any resonances or harmonics introduced by a low-pass filter, but you’ll end up with artifacts if you have to dither the result. The point is that for 88.2 to 44.1 you just throw away half the samples and you get exactly what would have been recorded at 44.1, if I understand it correctly.

]]> By: David Rose http://thestereobus.com/2010/01/02/visual-analogy-to-high-definition-sample-rate-conversion/comment-page-1/#comment-12165 David Rose Fri, 21 Jan 2011 02:00:04 +0000 http://thestereobus.com/?p=208#comment-12165 Is the conversion from 88.2khz really smoother to your ears than 96khz? I've done tests, using iZotope sample conversion, which is the best I have ever used, and I can't tell if it's any smoother or not. Theoretically, possibly, but audibly....? Is the conversion from 88.2khz really smoother to your ears than 96khz? I’ve done tests, using iZotope sample conversion, which is the best I have ever used, and I can’t tell if it’s any smoother or not. Theoretically, possibly, but audibly….?

]]> By: Dan Connor http://thestereobus.com/2010/01/02/visual-analogy-to-high-definition-sample-rate-conversion/comment-page-1/#comment-7173 Dan Connor Sun, 06 Jun 2010 22:17:41 +0000 http://thestereobus.com/?p=208#comment-7173 Absolutely right. So unless you have super high-end filters, stick with even sample rate conversions! Absolutely right. So unless you have super high-end filters, stick with even sample rate conversions!

]]> By: Rosmunda http://thestereobus.com/2010/01/02/visual-analogy-to-high-definition-sample-rate-conversion/comment-page-1/#comment-7147 Rosmunda Thu, 03 Jun 2010 21:54:59 +0000 http://thestereobus.com/?p=208#comment-7147 <i>Very nice. The math nerd in me wants to point out that the 88.2 -> 44.1 conversion comes out cleaner because of the direct halving. 96 -> 44.1 is a 2:1 ratio whereas the 96 -> 44.1 is approximately 2.177 to 1 ratio. It makes sense you’d lose clarity in an uneven division like that. Even the cheapest of components should be able to accurately divide by 2. </i> +1 Very nice. The math nerd in me wants to point out that the 88.2 -> 44.1 conversion comes out cleaner because of the direct halving. 96 -> 44.1 is a 2:1 ratio whereas the 96 -> 44.1 is approximately 2.177 to 1 ratio. It makes sense you’d lose clarity in an uneven division like that. Even the cheapest of components should be able to accurately divide by 2.
+1

]]> By: Dan Connor http://thestereobus.com/2010/01/02/visual-analogy-to-high-definition-sample-rate-conversion/comment-page-1/#comment-5417 Dan Connor Thu, 07 Jan 2010 05:40:17 +0000 http://thestereobus.com/?p=208#comment-5417 That's actually exactly my point! Even 1/2 ratio comes out cleanest :) That’s actually exactly my point! Even 1/2 ratio comes out cleanest :)

]]> By: Joga Luce http://thestereobus.com/2010/01/02/visual-analogy-to-high-definition-sample-rate-conversion/comment-page-1/#comment-5416 Joga Luce Thu, 07 Jan 2010 04:55:00 +0000 http://thestereobus.com/?p=208#comment-5416 Very nice. The math nerd in me wants to point out that the 88.2 -> 44.1 conversion comes out cleaner because of the direct halving. 96 -> 44.1 is a 2:1 ratio whereas the 96 -> 44.1 is approximately 2.177 to 1 ratio. It makes sense you'd lose clarity in an uneven division like that. Even the cheapest of components should be able to accurately divide by 2. Digitally dividing by a decimal extending out to 30 places probably isn't as easy to engineer as it sounds. No pun intended. Very nice. The math nerd in me wants to point out that the 88.2 -> 44.1 conversion comes out cleaner because of the direct halving. 96 -> 44.1 is a 2:1 ratio whereas the 96 -> 44.1 is approximately 2.177 to 1 ratio. It makes sense you’d lose clarity in an uneven division like that. Even the cheapest of components should be able to accurately divide by 2.

Digitally dividing by a decimal extending out to 30 places probably isn’t as easy to engineer as it sounds. No pun intended.

]]>