Ok /g/. I have two copies of the same song from different sources online. 1 is 320 MP3 and appears to have full bandwidth (just over 21K). The other is FLAC but is cut off at 20k. It was my understanding that FLAC was supposed to be lossless. So why does the MP3 version have information that the FLAC version is missing?
NOTE: I am not here to start a flame war over music quality, this is purely a technical question.
The FLAC one is a bogus file converted from lossy.
>>55096397
the flac is shitty. How hard is this to grasp
>>55096397
It's likely that the FLAC was transcoded from a lossy format and it's also possible that they are of different master. However the cut in FLAC version in comparison to the band energy of the mp3 and shelving really make it seem like the this is someone being smart and just re-encoding mp3s into FLAC. Bandwidth is not a good indication alone as it's perfectly possible to have a lossless recording cut way below 20 KHz. Pic related is an actual lossless track.
>>55096397
you're supposed to listen to music, not look at it.
>>55096397
FLAC has room for more information per byte, so you're actually getting more bandwidth even though it looks like less
>convert 192kbps mp3 album to flac
>seed it on what.cd
>mfw "A:10 THX uploader great rip" comments everywhere
ez raito
>>55096397
>>55096718
I have no idea what I'm looking at
>>55097254
Yeah no or did you forge the log file too and were lucky enough that nobody checked the md5s?
I stopped to pay attention to that
>audiophile autists
Just kill youselves
>>55097298
A spectrum analyzer which in these examples shows how sound energy is distributed in the audio file as a function of time. X-axis is time, Y-axis is bandwidth and color is amplitude
>>55097379
Good post.
>>55097475
that's smashing. I really can't hear the difference between most codecs, but then again I've never checked to see if they were legit.
so yeah pretty neat.
>>55097583
The perceivable difference is another matter entirely and aside from extremely poor codecs/constrained bitrates, fairly unrelated to what you see on spectrum analysers of this resolution.
>>55096718
Yea basicly this, however in your case since you have an MP3 with a higher bandwidth spectrum, somebody reencoded an mp3 to a flac. I'm not sure why the MP3 went to 21khz perhaps an old recording, nowadays standard is 20 Khz.
The FLAC is either converted from music mastered up to 20KHz frequency or transcoded from an MP3 file (most likely 192kbps) that has cut off frequency of 20KHz.
Moral of the story: DO NOT TRUST FLACS FOUND ON THE INTERNET
Instead buy the CD yourself and extract a FLAC from it instead. People have been forging .cue files and logs for eons and so many have purposely uploaded FLACs transcoded from MP3 or other lossy formats as well. In fact you can even disable the frequency cut-off in MP3 files so the FLAC looks as legit as legit can be. Add in the forged log and .cue files and yoi can troll hundreds, potentially thousands of audiophiles.
>>55097953
>yoi can troll hundreds, potentially thousands of audiophiles.
If they can't tell the difference, you didn't troll them.
If they CAN tell the difference, you didn't troll them either.
>>55097991
I'm referring to audiofools who only download FLACs because they have "high quality audio".
If you upload entire albums ripped from 192kbps MP3 files with the frequency cutoff filter disable, forge .cye and logs, and get 10/10 audio comments then you have trolled them. You can laugh as hard as you want every time some audiofool downloads your FLACs.
I would love to do this (I have a what.cd account) but don't have the time. I'm sure many others have done this though.
