Here's a situation that will probably generate diverse opinions ....
Suppose you have a client that needs a particular file (song or album) that must be at 24 bit / 48k resolution. You have two versions of the file. Both files are from the same high quality source (original master tapes, SHM, MFSL, K2 ,blah, blah, blah...whatever) but you do not know the bit or sample rate it was originally recorded. One is a 16 bit 44.1khz file and the other is a 24 bit 96khz file.
Question: Is it better to upsample the 16/44.1 file to 24/48 OR downsample the 24/96 file to 24/48? Which way would give the best sounding, most accurate results with the least amount artifacts or distortion?
My initial thought would be to downsample the 24/96 file - You always want to work from the best quality original and you are staying with the same bit depth - right? And the 16/44 file can not sound better simply by upsampling the bit depth and sample rate - right? But if you do a bit of searching on the net, there are many articles that argue that higher sample rates don't necessarily translate into better sound and some even argue there is less accuracy and more chances for distortion or artifacts at higher bit rates. Some of those same "experts" argue humans can't hear a difference between 16 bit and 24 (or 32 float) bit. It is also suggested that downsampling from a higher to lower rate can introduce distortion and artifacts that were not in the original recording.
For example: http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html#toc_intro (That article addresses higher sampling rates as a native format, not in terms of upsampling existing files.)
To add to the controversy, you see people claiming many of the titles on sites like HDTracks are not really native hi-res tracks, just upsampled to a higher rate to make them "hi-res".
So, what do you all think? Is it better to upsample or downsample to arrive at the desired bit depth and rate of 24/48? (And would your answer be the same if your available source files were 24/88, 24/176 or 24/192?) :lookaround
Suppose you have a client that needs a particular file (song or album) that must be at 24 bit / 48k resolution. You have two versions of the file. Both files are from the same high quality source (original master tapes, SHM, MFSL, K2 ,blah, blah, blah...whatever) but you do not know the bit or sample rate it was originally recorded. One is a 16 bit 44.1khz file and the other is a 24 bit 96khz file.
Question: Is it better to upsample the 16/44.1 file to 24/48 OR downsample the 24/96 file to 24/48? Which way would give the best sounding, most accurate results with the least amount artifacts or distortion?
My initial thought would be to downsample the 24/96 file - You always want to work from the best quality original and you are staying with the same bit depth - right? And the 16/44 file can not sound better simply by upsampling the bit depth and sample rate - right? But if you do a bit of searching on the net, there are many articles that argue that higher sample rates don't necessarily translate into better sound and some even argue there is less accuracy and more chances for distortion or artifacts at higher bit rates. Some of those same "experts" argue humans can't hear a difference between 16 bit and 24 (or 32 float) bit. It is also suggested that downsampling from a higher to lower rate can introduce distortion and artifacts that were not in the original recording.
For example: http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html#toc_intro (That article addresses higher sampling rates as a native format, not in terms of upsampling existing files.)
To add to the controversy, you see people claiming many of the titles on sites like HDTracks are not really native hi-res tracks, just upsampled to a higher rate to make them "hi-res".
So, what do you all think? Is it better to upsample or downsample to arrive at the desired bit depth and rate of 24/48? (And would your answer be the same if your available source files were 24/88, 24/176 or 24/192?) :lookaround