[bct] Would Resampling Help?

  • From: Tim Cross <tcross@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: blindcooltech@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2005 12:15:32 +1000

Hi Jamie,

I doubt that will do much good. Generally, when re-sampling, its OK to re-sample
at a lesser rate, but you can't affect much when you re-sample at a
higher rate. Essentially, the problem is the data for a higher
sampling rate simply isn't there. 

Generally what happens when you re-sample at a higher rate is that the
software fills in the gaps by averaging out the signal. This tends to
result in the same or less peaks - it won't add new peaks because
there is no way to accurately calculate what the new missing peak is
except by referencing existing values. Since the existing signal is
considered to be a bit "flat" already, the new signal is unlikely to
be any better. If the software used to do the re-sampling doesn't use
large floating point arithmetic, the result could actually be worse
due to rounding errors introduced in the calculations.  

Possibly the only way to improve the sound would be to run it through
an equalizer and artificially increase the high and low ends of the
signal and re-sample the output from this at a higher rate. However,
this is more than likely to add more hiss and rumble/hum into the

Its the old GIGO principal (Garbage in garbage out) combined with the
limitations of taking an inherently analogue and continuous wave and
trying to represent it in digital form, which by definition, is always
only an approximation of the original signal. 

My apologies to the list if I've dropped down into techno-babble. 


Jamie Pauls writes:
 > After listening to both the podcast on the latest Studio Recorder beta and
 > the show discussing the limitations of the Olympus WS-200S, I was wondering
 > what would happen if someone decoded a file recorded with the WS-200S and
 > resampled it to 96K. Would this brighten up the sound a bit? I may be really
 > showing my ignorance here, but I figured it wouldn't hurt to ask.
 > Jamie Pauls, MT-BC
 > http://www.accesswatch.info 

Other related posts: