High Quality Audio Files

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by papo

That will show you what the file's bitrate claims to be.

For example:
You rip an track in lossless quality from a CD. Then you compress to 320kbps. You will have a true 320kbps bitrate track.

Now if some one transcodes a 192kbps (CBR) to FLAC format, it is basically a lossy to lossless transcode, which is bad.

The file will claim its, let's say 320kbps or higher, but won't really be a "high-quality" audio file. Source file was a 192kbps.

the only real way to find out, is to open the track in a application that let's you look at the spectrum analysis to see where the frequencies start falling off.

---

Very true, like Spek. It's generally only worth running a file through Spek if it sounds a bit funny though, as you have to analyse each file individually. Your ears will be the best guide as to whether or not a file is acceptable quality. If it SOUNDS a lot worse than the reported bitrate in iTunes, Spek it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mdcdesign

Very true, like Spek. It's generally only worth running a file through Spek if it sounds a bit funny though, as you have to analyse each file individually. Your ears will be the best guide as to whether or not a file is acceptable quality. If it SOUNDS a lot worse than the reported bitrate in iTunes, Spek it.

---

exactly!!

well, if you get your music from LEGIT sources, why would it be reencoded from lower to high quality?

there are many people who post free tracks (personal edits/remixes) on SoundCloud that have this problem. Seen it more than you would think.

doesn't necessarily have to be lower quality to "high quality". there are instances where someone makes an edit of a track using an already-compressed mp3 file and not using the lossless flac/wav file. they re-compress the file again after the edit. (compressing an already lossy-file).

why do you have to come to an immediate conclusion that someone is download music illegally? don't have anyting better to do?

I think the OP asked a legit question.

the soundcloud player is 128kbps, if there is a download option this will be at the original uploaded quality.

Thank you all so much.

I look forward to the day when I'm answering more questions than I'm asking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trueartinspires

Thank you all so much.

I look forward to the day when I'm answering more questions than I'm asking.

---

With that attitude, it's only a matter of time :) :thumbup1:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by papo

there are many people who post free tracks (personal edits/remixes) on SoundCloud that have this problem. Seen it more than you would think.

doesn't necessarily have to be lower quality to "high quality". there are instances where someone makes an edit of a track using an already-compressed mp3 file and not using the lossless flac/wav file. they re-compress the file again after the edit. (compressing an already lossy-file).

why do you have to come to an immediate conclusion that someone is download music illegally? don't have anyting better to do?

I think the OP asked a legit question.

---

It's just, that what you posted just seems to be a common practice with that kind of stuff.

You can right-click and get info on an .mp3 in OS X, it shows bitrate.

are VBR tracks ok for djing? or should i go for at least 320kps? im asking cause bandcamp offers both but from their description and what I read online, there isnt that a difference between the two in quality, just that mp3 that is not VBR is more MB.
I recently got the araab mixtape n the tracks were 192 kps but they sounded as good as wav or aiff