There'd be no point batch-converting existing 16 bit samples to 24 bit, you wouldn't be adding anything other than an extra string of zeros to the end.
Likewise there'd be no point upsampling the 22kHz stuff to anything higher, you'd just add a couple of extra octaves of perfect silence on top of everything.
--- In newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com, "tron400" <tron400@...> wrote:
>
> But does batch-converting 16 bit to 24 bit improve the sound? I would think that resampling would be necessary. Also the Pinder samples were sampled at 22,050 Hz. There's lots of room for improvement there.
>
> Bernie
>
> --- In newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com, Fritz Doddy <fdoddy@> wrote:
> >
> > No need to convert one note at a time unless you're trying to avoid
> > interacting with your spouse. Tons of good quality batch converters
> > out there.
> >
> > Sorry for the brevity as I am replying from a remote region of
> > iPhonekstan.
> >
> > fritzdoddy
> >
> > On Sep 2, 2011, at 1:47 PM, "ClayE" <ecclesreinson@> wrote:
> >
> > > The fact that they are 24 bit samples probably explains the delay in
> > > getting the full 100 voices. My guess is that he didn't have all of
> > > the tape library voices sampled at 24 bit. The digital mellotron
> > > samples that Markus has supplied up until now have been 16 bit.
> > > (Pinder CD rom). You might think it's easy to convert 16 bit to 24
> > > bit, but Markus may have resampled everything one note at a time.
> > > Does anyone know ?