Download quite a few 320kbps albums over the years

>Download quite a few 320kbps albums over the years
>One day decide to spectrum analyze a few at random
>Over half are upscaled 128kbps

FUCK

Attached: 1497664724203.jpg (1080x1920, 741K)

Other urls found in this thread:

interviewfor.red/en/index.html
interviewfor.red/en/spectrals.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

cool story bro

>spectrum analyze
Yeah, your on the spectrum all right user.

>racetraitor.jpg

If you care about quality, buy the CD directly from the band, that way they get the cash. Rip the CD yourself to 512kbps OggVorbis. It will be perceivably identical to the original. Even a 128 Vorbis sounds superior to a 320 mp3.

>WHITE PEOPLE FUCK

Not this white person...

Attached: sad frog serenade bouzouki greek.png (480x413, 236K)

Two .308 rounds to the chest and one to the head. I don't think a lighter caliber could penetrate all the fat.

>320kbps
>doesn't have access to flac releases

it sucks to *not* be living in Eastern Europe

Attached: lg.png (449x401, 490K)

t. whoreposter

I always check with the spectrum analyzer before I even add them to my library.

why dont you just download lossless and convert them?

convert them to flac and then to wav recover some of the lost data

why don't you think lossless is subject to this same snafu

It seems you have been affected by rotational velocidensity. The MP3's were at 320kbps, but only when you found them. Sitting over on your drive over the years caused your bitrate to lower to horrible levels, despite them still appearing to be 320kbps. Use FLAC next time.

Hey guys. My sansaclip+ has no battery left.
What would you do? Get a new mp3?

post pics of the analyzed spectrum. especially you op why the fuck would you post that gay ass pic instead of one actually relevant to this thread and to Jow Forums

so help the community and the world by calling out the files. seriously, wherever you downloaded must have a comments section, right?

Torrent sites have comment sections but soulseek doesn't, and some people on slsk just can't be assed

>FUCK WHITE PEOPLE
Well, that's a new one. Fatties like that usually resort to the BBC for gratification.

Buy an iPod

Posting unrelated bait-pictures should be banned.

Android phone (preferably Galaxy S3 for the A grade DAC) with installed Viper4Android loaded with your headphone profile and poweramp with music FX enabled.

Just buy CDs you idiot. You get a great lossless copy that can be converted to anything, a physical backup along with the liner notes whatever.

most of my fake 320 kbps shit has been deleted, but i found this track here, which is 90% chance to be a fake.

I am theorizing these files typically come from youtube "320 kbps downloaders". Youtube only provides 128 kbps audio, so these downloaders upscale the audio. The worst part is; while some of these downloaders are farely obviously bullshit from looking at the spectrum (hard cutoff at 16 hz), some of these downloaders are more noisy so you might only see a soft cutoff at 16.

To make matters even worse, sometimes audio bought straight from the source has a soft cutoff at 16 khz. Why? No idea, I only guess that they were using 128kbps in their music. I will post a spectrum from a song I bought from google play music and post in reply to this post.

So where can you find this bullshit? Typically most of my bullshit mp3s come from blogs. If you didn't know, you can usually find zips of albums by using google with keywords like blog. A suprising number of these look legit, well tagged etc but are really upscales.

Where can you find legit music? Download flacs, there is no ambiguity here, fake flacs are ultra obvious. Torrent them, or download them from deezer.

Attached: Capture.png (2517x1263, 3.64M)

I paid money for this song, as far as I can tell, the artist fucked it all up from the beginning of production, I would be interested in seeing if the CD is fucked too.

Attached: Capture.png (2543x1253, 3.38M)

>eat garbage from a dumpster
>one day decide to look at it under a microscope
>i have worms

FUCK

Thanks but no thanks bro. I'm more into asians.

looks like a lesbian.
i dont know how to make sense of that, pls explain.

>buying music online
CDs.

Modern music made today will no doubt use compressed sound bites and effects, some probably taken from YT after being transcoded several times. Even TV broadcasts will use shitty rips from the Internet, I've seen DivX logos appear on shows and music videos. That's the state of everything today.

>Fall for the "you can't hear the difference between flac and mp3 meme"
>Do my own high quality CD rip in FLAC, mp3 320, and mp3 v0
>Realize the difference is very obvious in each one, especially the bass

what are the extra shoes for?

>I've seen DivX logos appear on shows and music videos
Examples?

>Yeah, your on the spectrum
So are you.

This is why you should download lossless because the whole point is to avoid the situation you had

I've only seen it on shitty satellite channels from eastern europe, one was called "Inedit TV". I'm pretty sure some channels are using music video uploads to Youtube as the quality is questionable, sometimes even god awful with heavy artifacts and low resolution.

i'll explain my understanding with reddit spacing, an autist can correct any errors i make

the spectrum is the amount of noise at a point in time on a given frequency.

the frequency chart there goes from 0 to 22 khz, human hearing is about 200hz to 20 khz

so, a 128 kbps mp3 file only stores sounds up to 16 khz. 128 kbps is the "default" sound quality, and you hear it on streaming music sites like spotify free and youtube at the highest video settings

well, some niggers like to upscale these 128 kbps to an """HD""" 320 kbps file. These fake files have the same file size as an hd, and say they have a 320 kbps audio stream in them.

Because the difference between 128 and 320 isn't massive if you're a normie with an ipod and earbuds, these fake hd files can mostly go undeteced, but you have two ways to detect them

1) by ear (you will have to be a super autist to spot a fake 100% of the time without a reference, but it has been obvious enough to me sometime that I knew i was hearing bullshit)
2) a spectrum analysis. fake upscales mostly only have noise above 16 khz

Here's a picture of a flac spectrum, these go beyond the typical limit of 20 khz you see in most 320s

a problem is that some new music producers have apparently been listening to youtube rips their whole lives so they are using youtube ripped audio in their music, making it look somewhere between a 128 and 320 kbps file, or what I have termed a "soft cutoff", I'm not 100% sure that is the reason why music bought straight from the artist looks like a fake 320 kbps file, but it seems likely

disclaimer: I'm not a musician and probably don't know what I'm talking about

Attached: Capture.png (2544x1269, 3.95M)

>fake upscales mostly only have noise above 16 khz
*fake upscales mostly only have noise below 16 khz

Lossless? Not necessarily. CD production is as easy to fuck up as high bitrate MP3 or AAC or whatever and easier to fuck up than FLAC. They won't be better on average.

You just get the added (not terribly huge, but still) amount of work to rip it.

There's an example.

Attached: divx.jpg (775x477, 103K)

And this is what 384kbps AC3 sounds like on a "HD" channel for anyone interested. It either went through some crappy filter or it really is source from a heavily compressed rip.

www dropbox com / s/rnf4xlud37izxrx/384Kbps.ac3?dl=1

>disclaimer: I'm not a musician and probably don't know what I'm talking about
i'm a musician and musicians don't know about or give a fuck about this shit
just like when audiophiles spend thousands on speaker cables to listen to something that a musician's recorded using whatever $5 guitar lead they've found lying around the studio

>www dropbox com / s/rnf4xlud37izxrx/384Kbps.ac3?dl=1

Christ almighty this has to be sourced from a 96 kbps mp3 or something

Attached: Capture.png (2553x1261, 2.25M)

/ptg/ checking in to laugh at you

Dumbass

I don't think this one is fake. It looks like a Google Play Music encode. There's still a small chance it's fake but I kinda doubt it. They use some funky encode settings that results in files often looking like this. Scene releases use this source more often than any others so it's extremely common to see files that look like that.

Some music is lossy mastered too. Even a legit flac sourced from deezer, qobuz, or tidal will look lossy. How will you know? Only use trusted sources to get your music.

Attached: 8 PRhyme - Streets at Night.mp3.png (1920x943, 2.18M)

Nevermind I noticed your file is cutting at 18khz not 20, yeah that probably is a fake...

you know, I think it's fine if that one fucks black guys

And you couldn't tell the difference. Audiophiles BTFO.

Can you provide some more examples of fucked google play music files? I did a little bit of extra testing of my own in this picture.

On the right is a spectrum of a song i just now downloaded from my Google play music library, and it looks perfectly fine. On the right is this song except I downloaded it from deezer this time, the spectrum looks slightly different but it is still clear that the source the artist made is all fucked up.

Let me see if i can get a flac of this song from deezer

Attached: Capture.png (2549x1266, 3.67M)

Attached: 11 Skyzoo - Parks & Recreation (feat. Saba Abraha).mp3.png (1920x943, 2.13M)

pretty good. .wav, .flac and such are more popular in music now because the advancements in pulse code modulation allows higher listening fidelity with the higher bit rate of a full 16 bits as opposed to the max .mp3 of 320 kbps. When you compress a file to .mp3, it removes bits of information it deems "unimportant" and replaces it with what I believe to be white noise, which is why you generally do hear only noise above 16khz with .mp3 and why .mp3 is a lossy format. The higher the bit depth, the more frequency response you get which would explain the one user experiencing more bass with the true 320 kbps file. Higher sample rates above 44.1 relate to higher frequency response, but anything above that is only found in film and you'll very rarely find music released above 44.1 unless its produced for an audiophile type setup which can play 96khz/24 bit. if you guys really care about your music quality always try and find lossless formats as they do not remove anything nor do they add anything. I know they are larger but the quality is much better. .mp3 is dead, the patent was not even renewed its such a dead format.

t. super amateur audio engineer

What's the problem, OP? Re-download what you can find as FLAC. Re-download what can't be found as FLAC as AAC. Keep the remaining MP3's since there's no other choice.

Too bad most will be 16bit 44kHz "cd quality" anyway, though.

I honestly never thought much about "the difference" until I decided to throw away all my burned CDs because .. who needs that. So I went through all of them, yes, really, to see if there was anything worth saving. The horror of 128kbps MP3 from the late 1990's was unbearable. The encoders common at the time are probably partly to blame, that combined with the low bitrate (Internet speeds weren't all that, storage space was expensive and size mattered a lot back then). What a waste that I burned and saved those files - like I wasted time and CDs on burning divx files. eeew that looks horrible

This is not a duplicate reply

Attached: Muddy Waters - Tom Cat.mp3.png (1920x943, 2.14M)

This one looks even worse. Could be because of the samples used.

Attached: Lucky Seven - Temple (Ft. Conway).mp3.png (1920x943, 1.86M)

whoops messed up, bit depth allows greater dynamic response while sample rate effects higher frequency response, but it would still explain the increase in bass as if the bass was mixed super low.

Oreilly

Yeah looks like you're right, on the left is in FLAC, and on the right is the song you posted here in FLAC.

Both spectrums look good, so perhaps my theory about widespread youtube samples isn't right. But that would mean both deezer and Google are doing a shit-tier job of reencoding their music.

I would really expect better from a fucking audio service that sells you music, I guess everyone should upgrade their hard drives and download flacs. I think education about audio would go a long way in avoiding things like this. I don't think I've ever stumbled across a video on youtube or a blog explaining audio format technicalities without me seeking them out, I''m guessing most people don't even know factors like bitrate even exist, much less do they know about audio upscales and shit reencodes

Attached: Capture.png (2531x1277, 3.93M)

When you're on private trackers you are forced to learn about this stuff or else you catch a ban. That's how I ended up learning everything. That and trading unreleased music with people who would check every file. Sometimes mp3s that look like transcodes really aren't, they were just done with a shitty encoder. I've seen things like that come directly from artists. I've also seen things with highs that cut off that look like transcodes have their highs boosted in the mastering stage.

This one is using samples lifted from youtube. The artists admitted it themselves, quite proudly.

interviewfor.red/en/index.html This site is a decent resource, it's for potential members of the private torrent site redacted to study before they take an interview for potential membership.

Attached: 14-Action_Bronson_Party_Supplies-Flip_Ya_Feat_Retchy_P.mp3.png (1920x943, 1.95M)

Eh, it's not that big a deal IMO if artists use lossy crap as source material. I mean if industrial music was made today they would be doing that shit deliberately.

Lossless 44.1khz 16 bit will result in a bit rate of 1.4Mbps (44100 x 16 x 2 channels).
mp3 somehow survives with 320kbps. So yea it's throwing a fuck ton out of the window. But it's not doing it arbitrarily, it's kind of like jpg, theres some scientific basis. Like you said, most of the time you can't notice what's above 16khz without a reference. Really depends on your autism level.

>interviewfor.red/en/spectrals.html

Good shit user. That page kind of suggests that 16 khz soft cutoffs are common even in well-encoded mp3s, does anyone know why? Maybe the encoders just put extra priority on 16 and below frequencies and so that shelf appears.

Yeah that's LAME's doing. They don't really provide good examples of what other encoders do on there, FhG 320 encodes often have no cut off at all and go all the way to 22khz. Even some newer LAME encodes do that depending on the settings you use.

If I wanted to fully give the benefit of doubt, the reason why they re-encode in 320kbps is because re-encoding will always result in lower quality, and re-encoding in 320kbps will have less of a quality hit.

Then again they could just straight rip the audio. Youtube re-encodes the audio when the person uploads it, and now they're encoding it again. By the time you rip something on youtube it's completely fucked.

>Where can you find legit music? Download flacs, there is no ambiguity here, fake flacs are ultra obvious. Torrent them, or download them from deezer.
Thanks for the info. Any way to easily find this out or do I just import it into audacity and look for the 16khz cutoff?

>people are being payed millions of dollars to output the master in MP3
For what reason? Why would any music studio ever do this?

What do you mean output the master in mp3? It's almost always bounced to a wav, aiff, or something else lossless. The new generation of artists often makes their music on home computers and doesn't always understand this though. So sometimes there's whole albums that were originally output to mp3 and they just end up getting sold that way because that's the only thing that exists.

Does he know hes white?

Yeah, FLACs should not have hard cutoffs below 24, if they do, they were probably converted from a mp3 or just encoded wrong. by the way, you're looking for a hard cutoff, this spectrum here is a legit flac, but it doesn't extend to the high freqs, and that's normal, you can still see that the audio trails off up there because of the equipment or the instruments just not making noises that high (in this case mostly because the song is quiet). you will see a hard shelf with some artifacts if a shit encode was involved

Attached: Capture.png (2497x1245, 3.68M)

I've just assumed that music labels provide streaming services and online music stores with a flac or wav copy, and the services do the encoding their own way. Hence why you can see in this thread some companies are doing a questionable job of that

That is exactly what happens.

Serves you right for being a thief

I'll go ahead and add that I've started going full FLAC, because even though I can't really hear the difference between FLAC and a good MP3, far far too many mp3s seem to be bullshit, that "320 kpbs mp3 full album" you downloaded can and clearly often is just some shit a brazilian downloaded from youtube and tagged up, and you can't really tell sometimes either without hearing the original good copy of the song

I've never seen a fake FLAC file, I guess nobody bothers making them because they wouldn't fool anyone. I don't deny they exist though, if anyone has some examples of fake flacs they've had experiences with that would be interesting.

see some music may be getting sold as a sub-optimal reencode anyway, even if you buy it from a reputable dealer. How suboptimal these google encodes are to the human should be tested

Serves you right for being a retard then

>you can't really tell sometimes either without hearing the original good copy of the song
I'm guessing encoding had leaps and bounds in the last decade, or I just stopped listening to music. I remember when I could hear a youtube rip a mile away.

When you listen to good quality music often (even if it's just the master encoded into V0 MP3, no way you can tell the difference but source matters), you'll notice artifacts even if it's played on speakers. You can get spoiled on quality easily but it's really hard to get used to lower quality encoded music. Also it seemed like youtube had a distinct sound to their artifacts.

Also protip: never trust streaming services, ever.

Fuck that entirely. Just use Bandcamp and get FLACs. Also, Bandcamp supports higher than CD quality. Enjoy your 16-bit minimal amount of samples shit.

This is what you get for downloading music on public trackers. Transcodes get you banned on private trackers.

Youtube now offers opus encoded audio which to me sounds as good as 128-192k mp3, depending on the particular song. I really can't tell without looking at it anymore.

Also it's not the streaming services that are in the wrong it's the artists, labels, and distributors supplying the content to them. Most of the time the content is fine if you can get it in FLAC. Usually if it's shit on one it's shit everywhere but there are always exceptions.

Bandcamp is quite good, especially since when you buy something there it has an extremely high chance of all the money going directly to the artist. It's also nice that if the artist chooses to upload 24 bit files (read, doesn't always happen) that's what you will get. But the same shit with lossy masters still applies. If an artist chooses to convert mp3s to wavs and upload them there that's what you'll get. It has happened before. A friend of mine was complaining about it just last week.

>depending on the particular song. I really can't tell without looking at it anymore.
Ah, guessed as much. Considering video requires far higher bitrates the easiest thing they could improve upon is audio quality. I never knew why audio bitrate depended on resolution. Just use the best audio bitrate for every resolution. But yeah MP3 has been superseded many times over but its staying power is too great.

I don't know if it's pride, but I'm guessing the true master is always in a lossless format and they release a lossy version for the consumer. At least in the EDM world top musicians always did this so that seeing it live was always the true way to see it. I've seen tracks that took years to come out because the artist wanted to keep it exclusive to their live set.

We all are.

>1.4Mbps (44100 x 16 x 2 channels).
>mp3 somehow survives with 320kbps
compressing x compacting
you can reduce filesize without loosing information, even with medium to high entropy like in PCMWAV

but yeah, the 320kbps mp3, most lossy actualy, is a mix of smoothing out info jpeg-style, and also reusing info zip-style (which jpeg also employs by the way)

it's not mp3, but mp2

>FUCK WHITE PEOPLE
No amount of signs is going to get that fatty laid.

That thing is technically male. I think.

>want to join a private tracker
>internet can barely handle the downloads, let alone the uploads

>Private trackers
Found the problem retard

Attached: retard.png (645x729, 56K)

This thing is ONLY _technically_ human I'd say...

Even if your internet wasn't shit, you wouldn't get in.

>Youtube only provides 128 kbps audio
Wrong, they support higher bitrates. Yt also uses AAC which has a far better compression ration than mp3.

>so these downloaders upscale the audio.
yep

>Obviously bullshit from looking at the spectrum (hard cutoff at 16 hz),
>To make matters even worse, sometimes audio bought straight from the source has a soft cutoff at 16 khz. Why?
Dude, frequencies above 16kHz have basically no relevance in music so its ok to chop them off.
Just do a blind test.
I highly doubt that your method is says that much about a upscaled bitrate.
Frequences above 16kHz porpably were never in the music in the first place, especially electronic music etc. You can potentially achieve greater loudness if you chop above 16kHz. So this might be done in the studio already.

>most of my fake 320 kbps shit has been deleted
lol.

Xe is so bitter that xe probably no longer cares about getting laid, just being as obnoxious as possible. Xir goal is to spread as much misery around as possible.

a while back when i was using itunes to rip mp3s it had the option to discard above some frequency, cant remember exactly what. but thats what all these cuts at 16khz looks like to me. i think it might be considered the upper limit of human hearing and intentionally left out to not waste space/energy of dealing with it

woke

Digital audio extraction dev here.

I've seen plenty of CDs, especially compilation CDs, where some of the tracks were 'digitally mixed' from MP3s. This has been going on since the late '90s.

You're completely wasting your time at 320kbps MP3. It's pointless. The way MP3 did things, buckets above 16KHz are throwing bits away compared to anything lower. There's a reason it's so old the last patents have almost expired.

Use opus --bitrate 128 for transparent audio in recent listening tests; LAME latest stable -V2 for transparent audio in MP3 (~192kbps) if you need greater compatibility; or FLAC for all archival purposes.

Tell me your opinion on VBR, mate.

This. OP most likely also used SATA drives in a humid room, which worsened the bitrate rot.

*Modern music mostly only have noise below 16 khz

For when the fat escapes the first pair.

>2018
>being a pirate
Lmao

Attached: 928B5BCF-7B40-403C-AB77-11593322E0D6.jpg (1242x2166, 370K)

>he can get every song he wants to hear from legal sources

PLEB DETECTED

I'm on shitty capped internet in the Philippines right now. I just do all my uploading on my seedbox. When I'm some place with public wifi I download things on my phone.

This

Still, disks have redundancy, it should not be that bad.

You all should just let the hoarder life die. Spotify has clients in every platform and is like $5 a month and you have to stop worrying about private trackers, upscald audio and not being able to find that obscure albums

Or you know, stop being a failed /mu/tant basedboi and get better musical taste

Attached: ACDA31A2-855A-46F1-B061-9C5FB66A4B1A.jpg (1242x2168, 1.46M)