How do I find out which track was compressed?
By comparing the dynamic range? The one with less dynamic range has been compressed
Use your placebo headphones and your golden ears
In all seriuosness unless they wanted this to be harder it might just be check the bitrate? If its all the same check waveform if u have the software
>>54560942
Compressed what?
Compressed dynamics? Lossy compressed codecs?
The Bottom one appears to be compressed. It has less dynamic range
Fourier transform and see if the high frequencies have been removed.
>>54561035
>>54561108
According to TT DR Offline Meter 1.4 top is 4.4, bottom is 5.8
>>54561044
both are 192kbps CBR MP3s from some shady russian website
>>54561374
Those are both shitty values famalam. I try to get albums that are at least DR10~12.
>>54560942
>lacking the faculty to tell by simply listening
What a fucking pleb.
>>54561506
>caring more about the DR that the content
Dig a hole on the ground and go die in it.
>>54561506
Well, at least where possible, if I download some new 2015 release, I know it can't possible have more than DR8 because modern music is mixed and mastered for compression in mind.
>>54561544
Where did I say that? I have some rare tracks that I have to enjoy in all their low-fi glory simply because they were never recorded well, but I still like the music.
Having a preference doesn't mean excluding everything that doesn't comply, I'll just double check if there's ever been a better recording of everything I listen to.
>>54560942
You're looking at the wrong visualization.
>>54560942
Look at how the waves at 59.85 are distorted in the top example. They are obviously compressed.
>>54562696
I would like to point out that mp3 is free to Europeans. It sucks to be America I guess.
221.3 MB flac
28.4 MB vorbis reencoded to -q5
>>54562802
>free
the correct word when regarding formats is open.
Because software to encode and decode MP3 licensed under free licence exists but is still restrained by a patent.
And the patent holder of MP3 decoding/encoding technologies refuses to grant free access to it.
>>54562909
The patents expired in Europe so they're open there too. That's what I meant by free (freedom).
>>54562868
You probably can't even hear beyond 16k-17k so there's nothing wrong with this compression.
t. my hearing cuts off slightly above 16k, 24 years old
>>54562946
I actually did an audiogram fairly recently as an exercise during my course I'm a med student.
And thanks to my autistic approach to hearing protection (in loud environment i wear both earplugs and earmuffs at the same time) I got a perfect score of a baby.
I'm 22.
>so there's nothing wrong with this compression.
Pretty much.
That's -q5, I keep -q6 reencodes on my portable player and that's what i listen most of my music on.
Burn the lossless files to a music cd. Do the same with lossy files - say 320k/s mp3.
Listen to both on a high end stereo.
You can tell the difference. If you're playing music you're familiar with using the same high-end stereo in the same room you usually do, the difference will be obvious and instantaneous.
You 'can't tell the difference' fags can take a long lingering suck on the slimey end of my fuckstick.
>>54563153
you can only tell the difference when comparing them.
>>54560942
2nd one is least compressed
Audiofag here,
look for and listen for transients, meaning the highest points in a waveform this come from the initial hits of instruments like snares, hi-hats, k, p, ess, sounds in voices, etc.
Every track contains compression. In the creating process individual parts of the songs are compressed, and even light compression is done after in the mastering process. Compression after the intended release usually completely kills any peaks though, especially if done to lossy audio formats. If you compress lossless it isn't too destructive because you're basically just removing the really high end information.
>>54562696
fuck yeah amon amarth
>>54560942
Top one definitely. Look at the waves on the right and how they're flat on the top.
Can humans even hear above 20khz?
>>54564391
if you look between 59.85 and 59.90 you can see that the waveform is less rounded on the bottom one, and the waveform at 59.86 contains much more noise.
The bottom ones has gone through some degradation
>>54562935
most have expired in amerilard as well.
>>54563056
I had to go into a club once and I didn't know the shit was that bad, for some reason the music must painful in volume even for how I am sure I mistreat them and to top it off the most distorted shit ever.
I must have lost a good amount of frequency there.
>>54560942
The bottom one seems less (dynamically) compressed.
For data compression, I'd check the FFT graph
>>54562868
>dat 19khz tone
Did you recorded that from radio?
>>54562696
there you go
>>54566482
Bottom is compressed, see how frequencies past a certain range are cut off.
>>54562696
:^)
>>54567214
>using the smiley with a carat nose
>>54567214
>using a shitty encoder
>>54568771
:v)
>>54562696
I can't even hear above 17.5 KHz. MP3 is good enough.
>>54570486
That's clipping, famusempai.
>>54571151
do you even know what you are fucking looking at?
>>54566482
Both are compressed.
>>54570645
>using the smiley with a v nose
>>54570645
How did he make the carat upside down¿
>>54570486
Why is there even anything above 20kHz? Are you a bat?
>>54562696
>20 kHz
>>54560942
Top one def. the compressed one.
maybe I'm an idiot but none of them look compressed, there's room to spare in both waves. *maybe* the bottom one has been normalized.
>>54560942
the one that is beck is always compressed
>>54571168
I'm seeing no transsition band at all, just flat energy hitting Nyquist like a wall.
One thing produces that: Clipping.
So yeah, I know what I'm looking at.
>>54561035
>dynamic range
That's a different kind of compression m8
>>54560942
Top one is compressed. It has fewer datapoints that indicate high frequency information.
>>54561506
Merzbow's Venereology album has a DR of 0, and it's a masterpiece. Hard to listen to, but still a masterpiece.
Top.
Very difficult to tell from a waveform, basically you're looking for where high frequency data has been simplified, curved peaks etc. Now looking through the thread for the answer.
BTW, I have a CE degree.
>>54560942
How the fuck do I compare two different audio files like this in Audacity? Serious question.
>>54575862
Literally drag from file, get windows explorer or thunar/nautilus, drag files and drop onto the audacity window.
>>54560942
They aren't even the same song.
