I don't believe you'll capture finer details. What you'll end up with is a softer sound. It will make overly-digital sounding clips sound better, but it won't m

I don't believe you'll capture finer details. What you'll end up with is a softer sound. It will make overly-digital sounding clips sound better, but it won't make previously unheard stuff come out. Where I get this from, is many moons ago I experimented with turning audio into a very wide image. Visually it looks rather like a frequency analyzer. It was easy to shift pitches around, but the digitization left artifacts at the wrong (unexpected) pitches which changed the sound of vowels quite considerably. Before I figured out why that is (and that alone was an amazingly interesting lightbulb over my head), I tried smoothing them out so those artifacts wouldn't be so odd. What I ended up with instead was something akin to talking through cotton, and guitar lines totally didn't sound like guitar anymore - more like a synth, which I thought sounded cool, but was effectively a failed experiment. I don't want to discourage you from doing this using math, and I'd love to see your progress in it, but my prediction is that you'll find something similar occurs. Having said that, I later discovered this device that I think contains the secret to making my experiments actually succeed: https://www.behringer.com/product.html?modelCode=P0CD0 https://www.behringer.com/product.html?modelCode=P0CD0 because it literally compensates for the problems inherent to what my smoothing experiments were doing. PS: I actually got the idea from an old television set I used to have that had a function that supposedly made it look higher definition. But even that showed some interesting artifacts (blur) if you looked at it up really close. But in motion, the videos indeed looked higher def, which is why I tried it on sound.