PDA

View Full Version : Spotting Lossy Sources--links inside


Five
2005-02-28, 11:43 AM
Hey all now we've got a forum dedicated to "questionable" sources (i.e. lossy/lossless). I moved all the previous threads on the topic in here.

I'm gonna stick this old thread at the top because it has the links to software. I'll come up with something a little cleaner in the next while.

-Five

---------

1st off, EAC is not always reliable for spotting lossy sources, based on discussion in this thread:
http://www.thetradersden.org/forums/showthread.php?t=1331

The freeware program AnalFreq works well, but is difficult to find these days. Try these links:
http://ftp.sunet.se/pub/simtelnet/win95/sound/afreq18.zip
http://www.simtel.net/product.download.mirrors.php?id=17151

The best tool is Adobe Audition/Cool Edit Pro. If you just want the SA functionality, download the old Cool Edit Pro 2.1, the Frequency Analysis and Spectral Analysis will still work even after the demo version expires (thanks to dorrcoq for this tip):

It is useful to add a "Black & White" preset for spectral analysis, to do this:

Cool Edit pro 2.00
options > settings >

"colors" tab > "spectral" tab
Spectral High energy: black (highlight > change color)
Spectral Low Energy: white

Gamma: 0.4
thanks to range_hood for showing me this useful setting.

Cool Edit Pro 2.0:
http://www.softpedia.com/progDownload/Cool-Edit-Pro-Download-2076.html

Audacity is excellent for FA and pretty good for SA:
http://audacity.sourceforge.net/

to use Audacity for FA, decompress to WAV, open the file with Audacity, select up to 23 seconds and go to view > plot spectrum. They say spectrum, but it's a Frequency Analysis you get. update: Audacity 1.3.10 (Beta) supports FLAC files with no need to decompress to wav first.

to use Audacity for SA, first go to Edit>Preferences>Spectograms and change the Maximum Frequency to 22050 (it only needs to be set once). close preferences, then drag and drop your FLAC (or WAV etc) file into the audacity window. in the top left corner of the new window that appears you will see a triangle, left-click it and select 'spectrum'. zoom in by selecting about 2 seconds (left-click and drag to highlight a selection, then click the 2nd-last magnifying glass icon on the upper-right).

Here's the classic guide to spotting lossy sources:
http://www.audiohub.org/get/fa/fa.htm
http://www.audiohub.org/get/fa/sa.htm

Check the stickys and some of the old discussions in the Lossy or Lossless? (http://www.thetradersden.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=47) forum to learn more. Don't hesitate to start your own thread if there's any doubt in your mind about the "purity" of any audio you're considering seeding. Please include screenshots and/or rapidshare.de / yousendit.com / megaupload.com etc link to 10 or 20 second FLAC sample.

U2Lynne
2005-02-28, 11:45 AM
Thanks, Five! It's always good to have this all in one place.

Five
2005-02-28, 11:48 AM
you're fast!

you're welcome!

U2Lynne
2005-02-28, 12:03 PM
It's the morning here when I drink my coffee and go through all the threads. :)

RainDawg
2005-03-01, 08:39 AM
Thanks for compiling these Fiver :). I personally like AnalFreq (aside from the name, it's a really handy little program). I'm not sure who the author is or why the program has seemed to start drying up though. Anyone who needs it and has no luck downloading from those links can contact me personally, as I keep a copy of the original zip file stored just in case this program goes completely underground.

Five
2005-03-01, 05:46 PM
you're welcome!

the author has created a new shareware program called "spectrascope". It's AnalFreq with a few more bells and whistles added:

http://www.spectrascope.com/

edbanky
2005-03-23, 12:49 PM
Does no one here use auCDtect?

http://www.true-audio.com/site.download

Five
2005-03-23, 08:48 PM
ack...

this program is not reliable for verifying lossless pedigree. when it detects mp3-sourced audio it is quite accurate the trouble is it doesn't always detect it. so if it helps you spot lossy sources go for it but just because auCDtect says it's clean doesn't mean that it is.

Lou
2005-03-24, 09:57 PM
I think a subforum should be made that's specifically for threads asking, "Is this show lossy" or any other questions about whether something's digitally wrong. Additionally, this subforum could be used to house threads asking if a particular show has a quirk, and if everyone's copy of that show also has that quirk.

Lou
2005-03-26, 10:07 PM
There's already now two more "Is this mp3" threads since this thread...I think an "Is this mp3" subforum would clean things up.

mint_clay
2005-03-26, 10:26 PM
i havent had time to go through any of the threads, so i apologize if my suggestion has already been handled.. but..

i think it would be very handy if someone could come up with a webpage that shows what the different frequency analysis responses or whatever look like for different equipment. IE, such as a minidisk recording will look similar to mp3 sometimes, as well as some DAT recordings depending on the settings, etc. I know it would help me out a lot if someone could really explain the differences and what to look for (if anything)..

jcrab66
2005-03-26, 10:39 PM
i think based on previous discussion its kind of a consensus that analfreq is best for FA while Audition/CEP is best for SA. Am i right?

Five
2005-03-27, 02:22 AM
There's already now two more "Is this mp3" threads since this thread...I think an "Is this mp3" subforum would clean things up.
Thanks so much for the great suggestion, we're taking it very seriously! Stay tuned...

i think it would be very handy if someone could come up with a webpage that shows what the different frequency analysis responses or whatever look like for different equipment. IE, such as a minidisk recording will look similar to mp3 sometimes, as well as some DAT recordings depending on the settings, etc. I know it would help me out a lot if someone could really explain the differences and what to look for (if anything)..
This is a big project which has been in the works since before STG crashed. We have to be very careful because there's no single authority on the subject and we don't want to post anything which is misleading. This thread and and Lou's suggested forum are steps in the right direction.

i think based on previous discussion its kind of a consensus that analfreq is best for FA while Audition/CEP is best for SA. Am i right?
ffooky has shown me that Audacity is sometimes even a little better than analfreq for FA, and yes CEP/Audition is still the best for SA.

brainysod
2005-05-26, 02:03 PM
So what exactly do you have to spot to see it for yourself manually? I am real interested in finding this out...

Five
2005-05-26, 02:45 PM
look for a steep cutoff in the FA (often 16kHz), look for a flat top when viewing the SA, zoom in to 2 seconds using SA and look for block shapes.

check a few of these for some examples:
http://www.thetradersden.org/forums/showthread.php?t=1331 http://www.thetradersden.org/forums/showthread.php?t=2030 http://www.thetradersden.org/forums/showthread.php?t=2199 http://www.thetradersden.org/forums/showthread.php?t=2250 http://www.thetradersden.org/forums/showthread.php?t=2107 http://www.thetradersden.org/forums/showthread.php?t=2776 http://www.thetradersden.org/forums/showthread.php?t=2807 http://www.thetradersden.org/forums/showthread.php?t=3176 http://www.thetradersden.org/forums/showthread.php?t=3544 http://www.thetradersden.org/forums/showthread.php?t=3455 http://www.thetradersden.org/forums/showthread.php?t=3671 http://www.thetradersden.org/forums/showthread.php?t=3900 http://www.thetradersden.org/forums/showthread.php?t=4089 http://www.thetradersden.org/forums/showthread.php?t=4129 http://www.thetradersden.org/forums/showthread.php?t=4332 http://www.thetradersden.org/forums/showthread.php?t=4761 http://www.thetradersden.org/forums/showthread.php?t=4841 http://www.thetradersden.org/forums/showthread.php?t=4883 http://www.thetradersden.org/forums/showthread.php?t=4910 http://www.thetradersden.org/forums/showthread.php?t=4924 http://www.thetradersden.org/forums/showthread.php?t=5305 http://www.thetradersden.org/forums/showthread.php?t=5311 http://www.thetradersden.org/forums/showthread.php?t=5349 http://www.thetradersden.org/forums/showthread.php?t=5426 http://www.thetradersden.org/forums/showthread.php?t=5458 http://www.thetradersden.org/forums/showthread.php?t=5606 http://www.thetradersden.org/forums/showthread.php?t=6232 http://www.thetradersden.org/forums/showthread.php?t=6305 http://www.thetradersden.org/forums/showthread.php?t=6335 http://www.thetradersden.org/forums/showthread.php?t=6436 http://www.thetradersden.org/forums/showthread.php?t=6456 http://www.thetradersden.org/forums/showthread.php?t=6497 http://www.thetradersden.org/forums/showthread.php?t=6534 http://www.thetradersden.org/forums/showthread.php?t=6615 http://www.thetradersden.org/forums/showthread.php?t=6655 http://www.thetradersden.org/forums/showthread.php?t=6674 http://www.thetradersden.org/forums/showthread.php?t=6858 http://www.thetradersden.org/forums/showthread.php?t=6973 http://www.thetradersden.org/forums/showthread.php?t=7063 http://www.thetradersden.org/forums/showthread.php?t=7121 http://www.thetradersden.org/forums/showthread.php?t=7127 http://www.thetradersden.org/forums/showthread.php?t=7650
hope this helps

AAR.oner
2005-05-30, 11:15 AM
a SA/FA forum :clap: :clap: :clap:

now we know where to find Five when we need him ;)

U2Lynne
2005-05-30, 11:24 AM
Yep, this is Five's baby. :)

range_hood
2005-05-30, 02:19 PM
:wave: :cool:

so now people could use more informative thread titles, that others with the same show could spot these easier.
something like:

sp1996-05-15 Brixton Academy, London, England (ttd)
sp1996-05-15 Brixton Academy, London, England (dime)
sp1996-05-15 Brixton Academy, London, England (snail mail trade)
or even
sp1996-05-15 :hmm:

anyway, nice improvement :thumbsup
thanks five

buzzy
2005-06-03, 09:08 AM
Here's another link that many people should find useful:
http://wiki.etree.org/index.php?page=SourceAnalysis

There's some discussion and links there about why you don't want to use True Audio / aucdtect for this kind of thing.

ffooky
2005-07-26, 11:02 AM
ffooky has shown me that Audition is sometimes even a little better than analfreq for FA, and yes CEP/Audition is still the best for SA.

I think this may be a typo...Audacity does the FA thang very nicely.

Adobe don't want to let me use Audition on my computer
:mad:

range_hood
2005-07-26, 01:24 PM
Maybe cool edit 96?

http://www.threechords.com/hammerhead/cool_edit_96.shtml

range_hood
2005-08-07, 06:03 AM
There is a flac plugin for Cool edit available here:

http://www.vuplayer.com/other.php

Five
2005-08-07, 06:52 AM
I think this may be a typo...Audacity does the FA thang very nicely.

Adobe don't want to let me use Audition on my computer
:mad:
you are correct, I meant to say Audacity :redface: I fixed to typeo to avoid confusion.

thanks range_hood for posting the link to the FLAC filter. I use that all the time. Monkey's Audio also comes with a CEP/Audition filter, when you install it you can find APE.flt in the Monkey's Audio\Tools folder. Just copy that over to the main CEP/Audition folder (you'll know it's the right folder because you'll see other .flt files there). With these filters you can read and write FLAC and APE directly into/out of CEP/Audition. There is no SHN filter I've ever been able to find. There is one for wavpack, tho.

There are a whole series of progs leading up to Adobe Auditon 1.5 (current as of this post). They're all very similar. I believe the original is CE96, then came CE2000, then CEPv1.x (last 1.x version was 1.2a) followed by v2.0 and the last was v2.1. Then Adobe bought Syntrillium and put out Adobe Audition 1.0 which was a couple builds up but pretty much CEPv2.1 with different branding. Audition 1.5 has some real development put into it, the marquee tool being the most useful and significant. Now you can actually draw boxes on spectograms and process only the contents which is a lot more useful than it might seem. I'm wondering if they're going to begin slowly adding all the photoshop tools over time :lol They also now have VST support but its nowhere near as good as most of the wrappers/adapters made by others. I believe spinaudio.com still offers an excellent freeware one but best of all is ffx-4 (http://perso.wanadoo.fr/vb-audio/us/products/dxrack/dxrack.htm) which does VST>DX and also fx chains. ffx-4 is also available for free as a winamp plugin, giving full DX/VST capabilities to that player, one of the big reasons I still use that prog which has recently become somewhat unpopular.

range_hood
2005-08-07, 07:09 AM
Now you can actually draw boxes on spectograms and process only the contents which is a lot more useful than it might seem.

Do you mean you can draw, say lineage info in f.e. the high frequencies? :wtf:

mort
2005-08-07, 07:21 AM
Do you mean you can draw, say lineage info in f.e. the high frequencies? :wtf:



if you want to trick people into thinking mp3 sourced stuff is not mp3 do what the zappateers do. mix in tape noise there are programs that will even do it for you also they use exciters ! try ozone

Five
2005-08-07, 07:34 AM
Do you mean you can draw, say lineage info in f.e. the high frequencies? :wtf:
you could actually write words, yes. you would have to draw the letters one rectangle at a time, of course. it's more useful for times when you only want to hit a certain frequency range with something like "fill single click now" whereas otherwise you would be processing higher and lower frequencies than you want/need to.

guygee
2007-05-18, 12:33 PM
msg deleted: non sequiter, my facts were uncoordinated.

guygee
2007-05-18, 12:35 PM
wtf?

where am I? Where is this: http://www.thetradersden.org/forums/showthread.php?t=4288

Where are all those images that Five linked to in this thread? (http://www.thetradersden.org/forums/showthread.php?t=37791&highlight=carrier)

guygee
2007-05-18, 12:40 PM
if you want to trick people into thinking mp3 sourced stuff is not mp3 do what the zappateers do. mix in tape noise there are programs that will even do it for you also they use exciters ! try ozone

At least there is a good ninja barb in this old thread...Ahhh the good old days!

U2Lynne
2007-05-18, 12:51 PM
wtf?

where am I? Where is this: http://www.thetradersden.org/forums/showthread.php?t=4288

Where are all those images that Five linked to in this thread? (http://www.thetradersden.org/forums/showthread.php?t=37791&highlight=carrier)
I fixed the links to threads in the bottom post. Are those what you are talking about?

guygee
2007-05-18, 08:43 PM
I fixed the links to threads in the bottom post. Are those what you are talking about?

Yes Lynne, Thank You! :) :thumbsup :thumbsup

Samizdat
2007-05-29, 12:28 PM
Anyone care to take a stab at these guys?:

http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i194/Samizdat/ScreenShot020-1.gif

http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i194/Samizdat/ScreenShot021-1.gif

Five
2007-05-29, 01:10 PM
probably lossless with very poor frequency response... can't say anything conclusive looking at EAC caps. read the beginning of this thread & post back
http://www.thetradersden.org/forums/showthread.php?t=4288&page=1&pp=15

Samizdat
2008-02-12, 09:36 PM
In an effort to provide plenty of information to you folk who are good at interpretation, I have made screenshots including the waveform and spectral views, frequency analysis and phase analysis displays by Cool Edit Pro 2.1 .

The track is "Slaves of Pain" by Sepultura - June 7, 1991 - Noorderlight - Tilburg, Holland
Format: FLAC
Version: Audience

Total track length: 3:57.426
Selected length: 2:21.460

waveform
http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g38/2Blac/wf221460.jpg

spectral
http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g38/2Blac/sepspec.jpg

Hanning
http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g38/2Blac/hanning-3.jpg

Blackmann-Harris
http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g38/2Blac/blackmann-harris.jpg

Triangular
http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g38/2Blac/Tri75.jpg

Hamming
http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g38/2Blac/Hamming.jpg

Blackmann
http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g38/2Blac/Blackmann.jpg

Welch (Gaussian)
http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g38/2Blac/Welch-Gaussian.jpg

Samizdat
2008-02-13, 01:16 AM
phase
http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g38/2Blac/phase.jpg

jameskg
2008-02-17, 12:06 PM
^^^ this looks ok, but please post (only) a spectrum analyzer shot, in color, with about a 3 or 4 second span for confirmation.

thanks.

Samizdat
2008-02-17, 01:22 PM
^^^ this looks ok, but please post (only) a spectrum analyzer shot, in color, with about a 3 or 4 second span for confirmation.

thanks.

I've tested quite a few different frequency analysis programs, from EAC to Cool Edit, but never did I see anything about a "span."

You process the .wav file, you analyze it. How doe you do a "span" in Cool Edit Pro 2.1?

jameskg
2008-02-17, 02:56 PM
span, meaning time range...

I'd like to see a few seconds, in color, rather than the entire thing squashed together in B&W.

View the spectrum, highlight 3-4 seconds and hit that 'zoom to selection' button.

Five
2008-02-19, 05:32 AM
yeah james means set it to a 2-second view setting and just post the spectral. this one's most probably okay from what I've seen here so far but there's some things in the grain you just can't see with 4mins crammed into the window.

pattison2
2008-07-19, 12:04 PM
have a show where there is a sharp dropoff at just over 20 khz (20386hz); (mp3's are usually at 16 khz). checked with tlh and it says sourced from cdda. would this be lossy or lossless?

uninvited94
2008-07-19, 12:08 PM
have a show where there is a sharp dropoff at just over 20 khz (20386hz)

Doesn´t that also happen with VHS-sourced material, only with this visible "pilot tone" left from the dropoff? I have some shows by myself with the dropoff in that area, probably VHS-sourced.

ameyer17
2008-07-20, 03:49 AM
I don't think a sharp dropoff over 20 kHz is a VHS thing.
It's not that uncommon for a lowpass filter at about 20 kHz to be used when mastering something to 16/44.1 for some reason that escapes me at the moment.

Chaosu
2009-03-30, 03:28 PM
Not that long ago I asked a question about sample and was misleaded with analysis in Audacity because i picked wrong calculating function, anyway, I figured that You can also check spectrum in Audacity. Perhaps it's obvious (took me some time and I found it accidentally) but it's was never mentioned in this topic. This is much faster for spectrum than real-time analyzers like Spectrogram 16 which I used before for spectrum. Hope that helps.

Five
2009-04-11, 12:56 PM
thanks for the post!

also note that in audacity you need to go into preferences>spectrograms and change the maximum frequency to 22050Hz (the default is something like 8kHz, which is not very useful for our purposes...).

pissah
2009-11-21, 01:44 PM
Hello! has anybody had trouble with Trader's Little Helper's tool for checking for lossy files?
I have taped a few things straight to WAV, then after a bit of tweaking and EQing I often get a "source cannot be specified" or even "looks like MP3"
I KNOW there was no mp3 in the lineage so what's up with that??

showtaper
2009-11-21, 02:33 PM
Hello! has anybody had trouble with Trader's Little Helper's tool for checking for lossy files?
I have taped a few things straight to WAV, then after a bit of tweaking and EQing I often get a "source cannot be specified" or even "looks like MP3"
I KNOW there was no mp3 in the lineage so what's up with that??

There is no software tool that can reliably tell if a source is lossy. Please
don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

rspencer
2009-11-21, 02:43 PM
If anything, they're more useful for weeding out the good shows rather than the bad.

That is, if it says it's lossless, it very likely is. If it says it's lossy, then you'll need to look into it yourself manually (spec, freq) to determine if it truly is.

jameskg
2009-11-21, 02:47 PM
^^^

steelmusicuk
2010-02-27, 07:24 PM
I have been reading this thread with interest! I have been trading boots for many, many years... Obviously longer than the existence of mp3 and flac etc etc.
I must admit that I am finding it hard to understand the significance of the whole lossy debate. I can understand to a degree why someone may want the best possible quality recording... But, generally speaking, I have found that the audio quality of the 100s of recordings that I have had the pleasure of listening to, have either been dependant on the quality of the recording at source, or by the overcopying encountered during the cassette tape period. When I have converted shows through different formats, the quality is darn near the same in every format.... ?
If you guys can't tell by just kickin' back and listening to a show whether it's an mp3 or flac or wav or whatever... What does it matter whether it may have at one point existed as an mp3?
OK. Flac may be the best option for duplicating professional studio recordings. But for normal live boots etc.... What's the issue? Please enlighten me... I genuinely am not looking to upset anyone... I truely would like someone to help me understand this whole debate. I must be missing something!! (PS I have good hearing...)

rspencer
2010-02-28, 01:22 AM
If you have good hearing, you should be able to hear some of the reasons. Listen to the cymbals in an mp3. You'll hear a "swishiness," due to the missing chunks of music.

Just one example, but that's an easy one.

tay666
2010-02-28, 01:37 AM
Actually, a few years ago, I could have been the one making a post just like yours.
I couldn't understand the whole uproar.
I thought, "What's the big deal? They're only bootlegs".
Why should I care, when I can't even hear the difference?

Then I slowly became converted.
The first thing I realized, what that by taking the time to hunt down lossless version, I was also getting superior versions. Not just because they were lossless. But because in order to get one that was lossless, I was usually getting one that was a superior generation, if not actually sourced from the master. The ones circulating in lossy versions were usually high gen shows that possibly even went through multiple MP3 conversions.
Getting less generated versions yeilded much more enjoyable shows.
Less cuts, less problems, less issues that were introduced in later generations.

As I started paying more attention, and started weeding out the lossy shows. I could start to spot suspect shows just by listening to them. I could here some of the glitches from compression artifacts left in the recordings. I could notice the different 'flavor' of the show because of the stripped out frequencies.

So, now I am completely converted. I believe that lossless is the way to go.

Now, personally, I think they go a little overboard here with some of their rules. But it is their place, and their rules, and I follow them.
I can't fault them for trying to keep things as pure as possible.

LuvGlimmerTwins
2010-02-28, 09:40 AM
I, too, did not 'get it', at first....
With time, however, one's ears become more astute at detection (this coming from an older individual who endured way too many loud shows, right in front of the stacks....)
Likewise, preserving every last byte of an original recording makes future technological advances capable of rendering 'better' versions than what we may have today (via careful, thoughtful, non-destructive remastering).
Who would have thought, during the days of Dolby noise reduction, that surround sound and hi def would be in the future?
Just my two centavos ;)
LuvGlimmerTwins

steelmusicuk
2010-02-28, 11:44 AM
Thanks... Some great and valid points there! Especially about the preservation of the material. Are there any other formats on the horizon that adopt the lossless qualities of flac, but the disc space and of an mp3? Or, should we be seeing more (any) 'Flac' players on the market?

AAR.oner
2010-02-28, 12:10 PM
I have been reading this thread with interest! I have been trading boots for many, many years... Obviously longer than the existence of mp3 and flac etc etc.
I must admit that I am finding it hard to understand the significance of the whole lossy debate. I can understand to a degree why someone may want the best possible quality recording... But, generally speaking, I have found that the audio quality of the 100s of recordings that I have had the pleasure of listening to, have either been dependant on the quality of the recording at source, or by the overcopying encountered during the cassette tape period. When I have converted shows through different formats, the quality is darn near the same in every format.... ?
If you guys can't tell by just kickin' back and listening to a show whether it's an mp3 or flac or wav or whatever... What does it matter whether it may have at one point existed as an mp3?
OK. Flac may be the best option for duplicating professional studio recordings. But for normal live boots etc.... What's the issue? Please enlighten me... I genuinely am not looking to upset anyone... I truely would like someone to help me understand this whole debate. I must be missing something!! (PS I have good hearing...)

lets say you've got a silver boot that you decide to mp3 and share with someone...they burn it to CD, then extract and re-mp3 to share with someone else...thats been compressed twice now, with significant amount of information being thrown out each time [lowering the quality]...same thing happens again, then again, next thing ya know, you've got this horrible sounding recording, because its been compressed time after time -- in concept, kinda like taking a cassette and dubbing it over and over

throwing out some of the information [i.e. freq spectrum] results in a poorer overall sound, fact...which imo is even more important to avoid when talking about an audience recording than a studio one


there's nothing wrong with compressing to mp3 for yer own personal use, thats up to you...introducing mp3 in the trading pool results in a bunch of shit to swim thru to find the good stuff -- so keep lossy compression outta trading pool

steelmusicuk
2010-03-01, 04:37 PM
Hence the interest in checking the frequencies.... To spot those folks converting mp3 to flac! I do commend those that are active in keeping the quality as pure as possible. But i'd imagine that would not stop those converting mp3 to flac, as i suspect most would not check the frequencies. Question: Would anyone that spotted a conversion to flac from mp3 continue to trade it?

tay666
2010-03-02, 07:30 PM
Hence the interest in checking the frequencies.... To spot those folks converting mp3 to flac! I do commend those that are active in keeping the quality as pure as possible. But i'd imagine that would not stop those converting mp3 to flac, as i suspect most would not check the frequencies. Question: Would anyone that spotted a conversion to flac from mp3 continue to trade it?

I don't trade the ones I have found in my own collection.
I have them noted on my list as MP3 and I won't trade them.
And I have almost managed to replace all of them. (I hang on to them until I get a replacement so I can still listen to them, and some don't have a lossless version in circulation yet)
The only exception to that for me, are shows that were originally recorded as MP3 or other lossy source. (there are still some people that record in that format)
Those get traded within a very small circle of Iron Maiden traders that want every known version of a show. We don't trade them to others, but we do share them amongst ourselves

ScUmFoX
2010-03-02, 07:49 PM
What if you get a show online, in a .zip, torrent, etc in a lossy format. Is there any way you can change it, without trading for a new one, so you can add it to your collection? Audio, specifically.

I've heard bad things about "re-encoding". Is that what I want to do, and why is it bad? Does it worsen quality?

rspencer
2010-03-02, 08:58 PM
It will just "bloat" it, and it's really kinda pointless. Converting mp3 to flac only increases the file size. There's no way to replace the music that's been removed.

So it's best to just leave it as mp3.

tay666
2010-03-03, 05:56 PM
Exactly. Once it becomes lossy, there is no 'fixing' it.
Only thing to do is find a replacement.

As I mentioned, I keep them for my personal collection until I find that replacement.
But I won't spread them.

zootype
2011-02-07, 10:42 AM
Re: Spotting Lossy Sources--links inside

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by pissah
Hello! has anybody had trouble with Trader's Little Helper's tool for checking for lossy files?
I have taped a few things straight to WAV, then after a bit of tweaking and EQing I often get a "source cannot be specified" or even "looks like MP3"
I KNOW there was no mp3 in the lineage so what's up with that??


There is no software tool that can reliably tell if a source is lossy. Please
don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

So what exactly can this thread tell us about determining whether or not an upload would be acceptable here, re: lossy or lossless?
Not much, apparently.

zootype
2011-02-08, 08:08 PM
Re: Spotting Lossy Sources--links inside

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by pissah
Hello! has anybody had trouble with Trader's Little Helper's tool for checking for lossy files?
I have taped a few things straight to WAV, then after a bit of tweaking and EQing I often get a "source cannot be specified" or even "looks like MP3"
I KNOW there was no mp3 in the lineage so what's up with that??




So what exactly can this thread tell us about determining whether or not an upload would be acceptable here, re: lossy or lossless?
Not much, apparently.

OK I'll try to be less cranky and figure out this here spectrum anal thing :D

jpeace
2014-01-15, 06:58 AM
AS mentioned in another thread, it is possible to fool all of you by using harmonic synthesis to restore the missing high end. I've tried this, showed it to one of my MQR labelmates who is skilled at reading spectrals, and he couldn't tell the difference. Neither could TLH (CDDA 100%). Add tape noise like the Zappateers do? Amateurs. Just restore the high end with harmonic synthesis and no one will be the wiser.

This is all hypothetical. I'd never do that and circulate it. Just making a point that there's no foolproof way to tell the difference.

ssamadhi97
2014-03-05, 03:39 PM
Another neat program for spectral analysis is Sonic Visualiser.

http://www.sonicvisualiser.org/

It's free and open source.

With some tweaking its built-in spectrogram functionality is almost as good as that of CoolEdit Pro / Audition, even though it is not quite as customizable (color presets not editable, no dynamic range adjustment, no gamma adjustment)

The program is extensible through plugins, though I haven't tested any of those. Yet. <insert maniacal laughter here>

I've attached a Session Template to this post with settings I find to be suitable for source analysis. Extract it to %userprofile%\.Sonic Visualiser\templates and load it via File->Apply Session Template->Waveform and per-channel Spectrograms