Dither going up from 44.1 to 48?

Hi Gang...
I haven't done this before or at least I don't remember... :-)
 
I have a project that was recorded at 24/44.1 and I need to make a 24/48 print for the video...
 
Should I dither as I'm changing bit rates? ..Or not?
 
I'm guessing yes and running the mixes now but I have time to re-print if it turns out I shouldn't... (2-1hour sets)
 
Consensus?
 
Thanks

Thanks Craig...
 
I understood that anytime you change sample rate (not bit depth) you were supposed to dither so that the unmatched spaces get slurred with the dithered noise...?
 
Whether going up or down, there are gonna be places where the spaces don't line up...?
 
Do you know of any definitive talks about this I might browse?
 

Anderton

Keni
Do you know of any definitive talks about this I might browse?

 
Trust me on this one  The links to the audio examples are broken, but the info is there.
 

Thanks Craig...
 
I do trust, but I also want to understand, so I'm off to read the link... I can't stream these days so not having the audio examples is just as well...
 

Dither has never been associated with sample rate.  Its to mask truncation artifacts when you decrease the bit depth.
 
 

Thanks Everybody...
 
I was so sure that I understood it but I see I was wrong again! ;-)
 
I'm wondering where I picked up my wrong info? Luckily, this is the first time it actually mattered. Up intil now I hae been dithering to go from 24/48 (or higher) down to 16/44.1 so all is well...
 
...and with your help I avoided making the mistake this time.
 
...and I have learned more!
 
...a very humble and thankful man!
 

Keni
Thanks Craig...
 
I understood that anytime you change sample rate (not bit depth) you were supposed to dither so that the unmatched spaces get slurred with the dithered noise...?
 

 
Wherever you heard this, please remove them from your list of trustworthy technical information sources. 
 
Unfortunately there is lots of stuff written about digital audio that's "easy to understand" but just plain wrong. Also unfortunate is that the correct technical explanation is often just not easy to understand intuitively.

John
Below is a paragraph from Dithering With Ozone by Izotope Page 8. 
 
"Section III: "Over on the corner there's a happy noise"
Down on the Corner by Creedence Clearwater Revival
So what to do? We dither. We'll get into the details of dithering later, but for now consider it as
adding very low-level noise to the audio before it is converted from 24 bits to 16 bits."
 
To me that is a simple way of putting it but its a useful way in understanding it. I use the word mask because that is what dither does. The artifacts are there but cannot be heard due to the masking effect of the noise that is added. 

In audio, the word masking is a technical term that has a specific meaning. It is not useful in understanding dither simply because dither does not rely on masking to work. I suspect it's "useful" to you only because you don't actually understand what's going on. Using incorrect, but perhaps easy to understand, explanations do not aid actual understanding and instead only add confusion. 
 
And the artifacts can be heard after dither, but they have been transformed from artifacts that are correlated with the signal (bad sounding distortion or modulated noise) to a less ugly and less obtrusive steady noise.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this. I see nothing wrong with the way I described dithering. 
 
Masking may be a tech term. I was using it as a word with its normal meaning. 

Six of one, half dozen of the other....
 
Personally, I lean toward replacing as the proper concept as it's done all in the digital domain - quantization noise isn't something that is treated or filtered separately. Once dither is blindly added, the quantization noise is gone - it can't be recovered. (Which isn't to say that new quantization effects can't be created by further downsampling.)

drewfx1

John
We'll just have to agree to disagree on this. I see nothing wrong with the way I described dithering. 
 
Masking may be a tech term. I was using it as a word with its normal meaning. 

There's no agreeing to disagree. It's not a matter of opinion. This one is cut and dry and you're simply wrong.  
 
We can go through how dither works and masking in excruciating detail. Dither doesn't mask the errors - it transforms them into something else.

Sorry thats a distinction without a difference. BTW we should keep our focus on the thread and its context. My post was meant to simplify the concepts in such a way that the OP would have a better idea of what is really happening. You may think masking is a poor way to define dither. I think its a good way to understanding the idea behind dither. 

Search for the word mask on the Wikipedia page for dither. 

I PM'd John so we can take our discussion off line, but one of the points is that you will find the word "mask" in technical documents discussing dither, but it's used (properly) in the context of explaining why we can hear parts of our signal that are below the noise floor. IOW it's using the word "mask" in a different way than the suggestion that "dither masks the quantization error".
 
So do I really want to have to explain how we can hear some things that aren't masked by the quantization error + dither, but we can't hear the quantization error itself because it's masked by the dither, but not, you know masked masked, just, you know, masked? 

I guess you miss my point about explaining dither in a quick and easy to understand way to the OP. To be clear its not that big of a deal for me. And in the end you did give the OP the truth. So its over.

Thanks everybody...
 
Let's stay friendly...
 
I thank you all for straightening me out on this... I was comfortable in believing I had correct understanding and now I have been corrected and understand the facts...
 
That's what is really important. Let's not quibble over exact semantics as the important part is getting the best final product, eh? :-)
 
Many thanks to everyone for helping me understand!
 
Keni
 

...and a happy Friday to you too Craig!
 
:-)