Upscaling mp3 files to studio master quality WAV - a revelation in sound

ColinLovesMusic

New member
May 3, 2016
5
0
0
The usual wav 16bit 44.1kHz 1411kbps is the same standard as CD but files can be converted to wav in 16bit 24bit or 32bit with sampling rates of up to the full 384kHz. I use AIMP media player's audio format converter to upscale my compressed lossy mp3 files to WAV 32bit float 192kHz sampling. The bit rate of the files is then an enormous 12288kbps. A 5min tracks uses about half a gig / 500mb. It is important to change the media player settings to output at 32bit float 192kHz to match the input and the outboard DAC must be able to handle 32bit 192kHz. The default setting is usually 44.1/16bit and leaving at that setting will cause all benefits to be lost. The sound is amazingly good and the reduced quality of the 320kbps mp3 is restored to studio quality or better. VU meter movement is greatly increased, demonstarting much increased dynamic range. The noise floor falls to well below audability. This allows the full decay of sound to be heard - no chopping off or distortion. Left and right of the stereo image is absolutely clearly defined. This conversion runs rings around lossless but compressed 24bit 192 flac. With wav 32bit float 192kHz there is greatly improved depth, detail, precision, imaging, clarity, bass is restored to a strong deep reasonant punch instead of being wooly. Treble is clear crystaline, extended detailed with slow natural decay instead of being slightly coarse, grainy and splattery with compressed mp3. The upscale creates a wide reaching soundscape drawing me into the music - I pick out nuanses and hear thing never before heard. The clean ness of the sound outclasses anything heard before. The benefits are even there from 128kbps mp3s with the upscaled sound coming close to studio master quality. This upscaling happened with me playing with settings to find out just how big such a file would be. I wasn't listening out for sound improvement, or expecting it but immediately on playback my head and ears pricked up in disbelief of what I was hearing. There will be plenty of people who will say or think I am talking rubbish and say compressed lossy sound cannot be restored. I say to them if you dont believe me try it. It costs nothing to do. So do it and hear the results for yourself. Just follow what I have written and to save complications use the same media player I use. It is freeware. Uninstal afterwards if you want to. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the downgrading of sound quality in compressed mp3 and other compressed formats is restored to the best possible and probably absolutely restored to studio quality just by converting up to this huge 32bit/192kHz wav. My DAC can only do 32bit via USB. Coaxial and optical is limited to 24bit. I do not know if this is universal across all DACs or not.
 

Tonestar1

Moderator
Nov 4, 2008
239
94
18,870
By upscaling you are digitlally inventing information that didn't exist. It may sound better to your ears but has nothing to do with the original master or what the composer intended you to hear.
 

ColinLovesMusic

New member
May 3, 2016
5
0
0
Tonestar1 said:
By upscaling you are digitlally inventing information that didn't exist. It may sound better to your ears but has nothing to do with the original master or what the composer intended you to hear.

What you say is something I hadn't concidered. Sounding better doesn't have to mean it is restored. If it sounds better to my ears rather than restored I am happy with better even if info has been invented and I still recommend convertion for a better sound even if the sound is not what was originally recorded. If other readers have mp3 files they are not totally happy with on sound quality they might be pleased with the upscaled sound of 32bit/192kHz WAV upscaled from mp3. Try it and conclude afterwards. No need for puny file sizes anymore. Storage so cheap now
 

Tonestar1

Moderator
Nov 4, 2008
239
94
18,870
That's what it's all about mate. If it sounds better to you then do it. I'm all for the best sound to my ears. If other people don't like it or it's not strictly hifi then so what. It's you who is listening.
 

expat_mike

Well-known member
Mar 30, 2013
160
4
18,595
There will always be the enigma for some who post on a High Fidelity forum, that they are not advocating High Fidelity. This is not meant to sound snobbish, but rather an exploration of terminology.

Decades ago, High Fidelity was interpreted as trying to play your source material (probably vinyl or radio in those days), and obtaining as near to 100% fidelity (accuracy) in the sound that was heard from the speakers or headphones.

Nowadays people seem to still use the phrase High Fidelity, even if they have upsampled/downsampled the source material, or used a valve amplifier to add some second harmonic distortion, and then listened through some headphones which provide a large bass boost to the music. The music bears little fidelity to the source material, and would be better called acceptable fidelity or enjoyable fidelity.

However i suppose there would be few sales for a magazine called What Acceptable Fi. *ROFL*

I await all the replies from 'outraged from tunbridge' stating that they have just spent £10k on their valve system, so it must be high fidelity. *ROFL*
 

ColinLovesMusic

New member
May 3, 2016
5
0
0
expat_mike said:
There will always be the enigma for some who post on a High Fidelity forum, that they are not advocating High Fidelity. This is not meant to sound snobbish, but rather an exploration of terminology.

Decades ago, High Fidelity was interpreted as trying to play your source material (probably vinyl or radio in those days), and obtaining as near to 100% fidelity (accuracy) in the sound that was heard from the speakers or headphones.

Nowadays people seem to still use the phrase High Fidelity, even if they have upsampled/downsampled the source material, or used a valve amplifier to add some second harmonic distortion, and then listened through some headphones which provide a large bass boost to the music. The music bears little fidelity to the source material, and would be better called acceptable fidelity or enjoyable fidelity.

However i suppose there would be few sales for a magazine called What Acceptable Fi. *ROFL*

I await all the replies from 'outraged from tunbridge' stating that they have just spent £10k on their valve system, so it must be high fidelity. *ROFL*

I remember as a child in the 70s seeing old 7'' singles from the 60s displaying the symbal 'True High Fidelity'. This made its mark on me and I embarked on the true high fidelity path for decades and spending far too much. This included suffering a few 'tone control less' amplifiers just because What Hifi and the like said that is what we should all do. This was in spite of the fact that I couldn't stand the sound produced.

As the years past I eventually managed to start thinking for myself and concluded there can be no such thing as 'true high fidelity' as it is impossible to reproduce a sound accurately anywhere else other than in the actual studio it was recorded in, and on the same equipment used to record it. If for no other reason room accustics are going to be different in absolutely every different room on the planet.

Having eventually managed to cure myself of the belief in the unbelievable I concluded the term HIFi and everything associated with it is just a very clever marketing tool to keep people dissatisfied so to keep people spending. Continual repeat perchases otherwise known as system upgrading. Of course every HIfi Magazine in existance is going to advocate the never ending upgrade route or their advertisers would be furious.

There is no such thing as HIFI - certainly not within a domestic setting and spending more and more doesn't make it anymore HIFI as 'true high fidelity' cannot be defined. If people just re-educated themsleves to understand that what matters is that the sound produced sounds fabulous to the person listening to it. If you enjoy a thumping bass and a crispy treble then listen to the music that way. Learn to love the 'Graphic Equalizer' the 'Sound Processer'. Second harmonics happen to be why valve amps sound better. They produce loads of lovely sounding second harmonic distortion but hardly any nasty 3rd or 4th harmonics but no need for a pricey valve amplifier as there are plenty of sound processors that can add second harmonics. I have my 'add second harmonics' set at 7 on the scale of 1 to 10 on my processer.

For gawd sake listen to the music and enjoy. Call the equipment a 'Sound System' which it is after all, as there is no such thing as 'HiFi'
 

Benedict_Arnold

New member
Jan 16, 2013
661
3
0
Is it possible that somehow the "steppy" digital signal from the original is getting transformed into "many more but smaller steps", thus giving the analogue electronics that ultimately convey the sound to one's ears an easier time?
I can see good software saying, sort of, "well, the output at time t is x volts and that jumps a millisecond later to 2x volts, so instead of making four steps of 0.25x volts in 1 millisecond, I'll make sixteen steps of 0.0625 volts instead".

??
 

RobinKidderminster

New member
May 27, 2009
582
0
0
Benedict_Arnold said:
Is it possible that somehow the "steppy" digital signal from the original is getting transformed into "many more but smaller steps", thus giving the analogue electronics that ultimately convey the sound to one's ears an easier time? I can see good software saying, sort of, "well, the output at time t is x volts and that jumps a millisecond later to 2x volts, so instead of making four steps of 0.25x volts in 1 millisecond, I'll make sixteen steps of 0.0625 volts instead".

??

Good call. Kinda makes sense. :)
 

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts