[vikulenka]

Originally Posted by ashsarhaz93

I think we may have gone off the subject somewhat???

Welcome to the Lounge

I love fish, but not nearly as much as Hirs Ute - who might be in Poland right now, fishing.

[jasn]

Originally Posted by ashsarhaz93

I think we may have gone off the subject somewhat???

Nah...this weren't nuthin' compared to other thread farts around here.

On topic, a low-rez file resampled to a higher bit rate would be even worse than the original, as it would remove even more information. However, the file data would show it with higher rez sampling. This may become a bigger problem as time goes by.

[Kaeli]

Originally Posted by ashsarhaz93

For all you fish lovers, here's some apt titles: That's a Moray, Clam Every Mountain, It Haddock Be You, Salmon Chanted Evening-------& last but not least:
Don't Coi For Me Argen-tuna.....

...and "walleye" wait for lunch I'd just like to say "have a halibut time".

[benv]

Originally Posted by ashsarhaz93

Hmmmmm, I am a wee bit concerned. Just downloaded a track that is supposedly 320kbps, but it really isn't as the quality is dire. Is it possible to burn a track that is say originally 128kbps & then re-burn it into 320kbps? And then claim that it is a 320kbps download.......

In what way is it dire? Do you know the source of the file? If you don't know, it could have been vinyl and ripped poorly, but still encoded directly to 320kbps.

A 'quick' way you can often tell if something has been re-encoded from a low bitrate is the frequency cut-off, a lot of MP3s I've come across have a low frequency cut off at 16khz, which is a sign of low bitrates.

Failing that if you have the original CD you could rip it yourself, encode using the exact same encoder and preset as the MP3 you have, then encode both into VBR and technically you should get an identical average birate.

But then I guess you'd just rip it yourself from CD

Also, I don't know of any tools to detect re-encoded MP3s, but AuCDtect can be used to check is a lossless file has been encoded from a lossy source, although again isn't 100%.

[MeridianFC-Suited]

As I've said before the best thing you can do is damage your hearing so badly in youth that anything above 128kbs is lost on you. Works for me!

[Nightfly]

Originally Posted by MeridianFC-Suited

As I've said before the best thing you can do is damage your hearing so badly in youth that anything above 128kbs is lost on you. Works for me!

I'm with you,and wouldn't want it any other way.........

[pouche]

though a bit late to the original poster...
agreeing with benv.
i'm a prog fan and as the CD boom came, many original tapes couldn't be found - so in a rush to join the frenzy, some CDs were pulled from albums or lesser generations of the master tape.

a perfect example of this is jethro tull's album aqualung. a 1971 album released to CD about 1985 or so, but pulled from an LP. the sound was wretched. master tapes were then found and the CD was re-issued about 1988. additionally, it's been remastered and issued a few more times since then.

the point being, a lot of 'older' music (pre 1985 or so) may have had a poor source, or a remastering that ruined the sound (just because something is remastered does NOT mean the sound is better!!!).

if a site offers multiple versions of the same song...or you have multiple accounts at different sites...listen to the low bit-rate versions one after another and determine which sounds better. i've personally gone as far as to download multiple versions of the same song to keep the more desireable one.

[jasn]

Funny that you used Aqualung as the example, because I must have the original version on CD and it sounds like crap!. I actually DL'd an Aqualung track from Sparks hoping to hear an improvement, but think it is of the same vintage.

For the older catalog albums I would like to know which version they are offering.

[pouche]

hi jasn
sparks actually offers two versions of the aqualung CD. the 'original', crappy one (listed as #24 under 'Tull Albums') and the 25th anniversary version (listed as #8 under 'Tull Albums') which is much, much better.

all of the later, master tape, remastered, etc. versions contain more than the 11 original LP songs...so that is always an easy clue.

the first 'best of Tull', called 'M.U.', has a remastered version of locamotive breath - a song i like a whole lot. and it, compared to the original or 25th anniversary version, is a great example of a remastering gone horribly wrong.
mind you, i say this as a true lover of guitar! but the version on M.U. has the guitar brought far, far too forward - almost to the point it interferes with the vocal - totally disrupting the balance of all the instruments and is a great example of someone remastering the original and (at least in my opinion) doing a terrible job of doing so.

[musicidiot]

Hi,
Is it avaliable that mp3 files can be converted to WAV format and its sound quality is the same as the original CDs?
If there is a way doing that, could you tell me how?

Best,
mi