Topic: Going from16-Bits>24-Bits. What is that technically called?

[F.O.Bean]

I know going from 48>44.1k is downsampling, and going from 44.1k>48k like I did on a recent show I could only get a 16/44.1k file of to patch my copy, is called upsampling. and going from 24-bits>16-bits is called dithering. BUT, what about going from 16-bits>24-bits Is going up in bits per sample count still just called dithering no matter if you are going up or down on the bits scale ? or is it called updithering or something to that effect?

TIA. I am finishing up my AOD(Assembly Of Dust) set from All Good. Its the LAST All Good set that I recorded and that still needs processed. I am/was in the process of finishing off the text file and was wondering if there is a specific name for going from 16>24-bits, or if its just called good 'ole dithering.

Bean

[Kyle]

is it upscaling?

[dorrcoq]

Why would you even do this?  You can't add what wasn't there to begin with, can you?

[guysonic]

In the editing program I use (CEP or Adobe Audition), there is a user setting to open all files 'as 32bit' depth files even if only originally 16bit files into the editing screen. 

I often use this option because the post process can benefit in more precision processing working files temporarily increased to 24 or 32 bit depth even if the original files are only 16 bits. 

If absolutely nothing is done to the original 16 bit file in post edit, then NO benefit to the 24-32 bit pre-post 'open-as' conversion whatsoever.

[china_rider]

Why would you want to do this?  If you have 16bit data and convert to 24bit would the resulting 24bit just be the original 16bit with the last 8bits 0 padded?  Thus you would just have a 24bit file saved with the dynamics of a 16bit.  Maybe I am missing something.

[larrysellers]

Why would you even do this?

Why would you want to do this?

He is using a 16bit source to patch a missing section to his 24bit source. Check the initial post.

[BJ]

Why would you even do this?

Why would you want to do this?

He is using a 16bit source to patch a missing section to his 24bit source. Check the initial post.

and I'm sure alot of people were wondering what scenario you would need to do this... 

edit:  oops read to fast
 

[Roving Sign]

How about "expanding bit depth"?

[BobW]

If this was posted in Computer Recording, you may get better responses...

44.1K to 96K is an example of up sampling, used mostly to allegedly make for "smoother D/A" and, hell, maybe it does.
There are many variables so direct comparisons are sparse.

Quantization at 16 bits can be either increased in "volume" (normalized?) to 24 bits, with the lower 8 bits containing no data, or interpolated to 24 bits, if you have the software that does it. (Wavelab?)

Please see:
http://www.24bitfaq.org

Beyond that, if you can bend Dan Heend's ear for a minute, he can give you better insights.
Dan does stop in to this board from time to time.
He's a very bright and helpful guy.
We're lucky to have him in the community.

If it's really got your goad, try a post on laptop-tapers or 24bit yahoo groups.
Also, Gordon Gidluck could be a good source.

[Lil Kim Jong-Il]

going from 24-bits>16-bits is called dithering.

I believe that is not an accurate use of the term.  To be pedantic, dithering is the addition of noise.  You can reduce the bit depth without dithering.

[BobW]

going from 24-bits>16-bits is called dithering.

I believe that is not an accurate use of the term.  To be pedantic, dithering is the addition of noise.  You can reduce the bit depth without dithering.

True, dithering is the adding noise or non-music to reduce something called "quantization error".
Here's an interesting take on why it may not even be necessary!     

http://www.hifi-writer.com/he/dvdaudio/dither.htm


And I suppose you expect some karmage for the proper use of "pendantic"       

[F.O.Bean]

going from 24-bits>16-bits is called dithering.

I believe that is not an accurate use of the term.  To be pedantic, dithering is the addition of noise.  You can reduce the bit depth without dithering.

True, dithering is the adding noise or non-music to reduce something called "quantization error".
Here's an interesting take on why it may not even be necessary!     

http://www.hifi-writer.com/he/dvdaudio/dither.htm


And I suppose you expect some karmage for the proper use of "pendantic"       

great read

[stevetoney]

Is pendanting the dithering of quantized iono-magnetic carbon-based celluloid?

[boojum]

going from 24-bits>16-bits is called dithering.

I believe that is not an accurate use of the term.  To be pedantic, dithering is the addition of noise.  You can reduce the bit depth without dithering.

Not pedantic; correct.  Thanks.   ;o)

[live2496]

If this was posted in Computer Recording, you may get better responses...

44.1K to 96K is an example of up sampling, used mostly to allegedly make for "smoother D/A" and, hell, maybe it does.
There are many variables so direct comparisons are sparse.

Quantization at 16 bits can be either increased in "volume" (normalized?) to 24 bits, with the lower 8 bits containing no data, or interpolated to 24 bits, if you have the software that does it. (Wavelab?)

Please see:
http://www.24bitfaq.org

Beyond that, if you can bend Dan Heend's ear for a minute, he can give you better insights.
Dan does stop in to this board from time to time.
He's a very bright and helpful guy.
We're lucky to have him in the community.

If it's really got your goad, try a post on laptop-tapers or 24bit yahoo groups.
Also, Gordon Gidluck could be a good source.

FWIW, if I were writing about this, I suppose I would use the term "increased the word length".

<edit>
or increasing the bit-depth.
</edit>