[HeyItsBattleKid]

It just seems that when people talk about upconverting DVDs, you might be able to find the same for audio as well. I've never seen anything and would imagine someone is hard at work trying to do so! It will never get you what you started with, but it should be better (and not just pixel doubling, which basically sounds like what 128kbps -> 320kbps would probably be doing). One day maybe... one day...

I'm curious if anyone has ever looked into it at all. I'm sure there is at least one college student out there doing this as a thesis!

 

[anetode]

No, most college students have taken basic maths.

 

[HeyItsBattleKid]

Quote:

Originally Posted by anetode /img/forum/go_quote.gif No, most college students have taken basic maths.

Well, then that just leaves the ones that have taken more than just basic maths. That leaves quite a few potentials

 

[anetode]

Nice! But I stand my point - once you understand the mathematics behind lossy encoding, any "improvement" algorithm becomes a fool's errand. Unless you're Sound Blaster, in which case you eq the hell out of the signal and call it "Crystallized".

 

[LFF]

No. Everybody is wrong. Of course taking a lossy source and making it FLAC would make it sound better. It turns lossless right!










J/K. Everyone is right. No. Transcoding it would only make it worse.

 

[Shark_Jump]

Can I use this as an analogy.

Imagine you go out for your favorite meal one evening.

The next day, after it has passed through your system, could you recreate that meal with your bodily waste products?

 

[salannelson]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shark_Jump /img/forum/go_quote.gif Can I use this as an analogy. Imagine you go out for your favorite meal one evening. The next day, after it has passed through your system, could you recreate that meal with your bodily waste products?

gross, but a decent analogy.. haha