How to distinguish re-encoded and real HQ tracks

[abc]

For the tutuoral you will need a program called Adobe Audition

drag & drop the mp3 you want to analyse than in the upper right corner select the Frequency Space Editing workspace. Now You will see the frequency spectrum.

Note: in the images you can see the Orange! preset

feel free to add more pictures or other info, also you can ask if you dont understand something

***

Here is how i tell if a track is 192/VBR encoded to 320.

Images:

Picture 1.
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y291/Silxx/reencode/VBR1.jpg

On VBR files, there is normally a line going across the spectrum at around 16kHz. That is the kind of 'peak' line, of where the CBR stops and the VBR begins. In 320s, this line doesn't really exist (well it does, but its the line going across the top of the spectrum)

Picture 2.
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y291/Silxx/reencode/VBR2.jpg

Another VBR file. Easy to tell again because of the 'peak' line.

Picture 3.
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y291/Silxx/reencode/3201.jpg

This is 320. It's obvious this file is 320 for 2 reasons.
1, There is no 'Peak' line (besides what is at the top of the spectrum)
2, 192k MP3s normally peak at around 16/17kHz, so anything above that is likely to be either 256 or 320. (320 is normally 18k+)

Picture 4.
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y291/Silxx/reencode/3202.jpg

Another 320, Obvious again

This one is a reencoded from 192 kbps

http://img522.imageshack.us/img522/9326/192ktq2.png

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

The frequency cut-off also depends on the encoder used.

After analysing many files i found some regularity (conceirning 320kbit!):

Lame encoders go up to about 20/21/22 depending on used encoder version.

Newer FHG and GOGO encoders dont cut off at all, going up to 22050 Hz.

But it seems there are some older FHG encoders (or even other encoders who only seem to be FHG because there is no other distinctive mark in the files) do cut off at 16khz and only at some parts the freqs go higher.


So if you got a 320 with a cutoff at 16khz encoded by lame its most likely a reencode.
If the encoder is FHG it is possible that the file is still a real due to the fact stated above.

[daveB]

Whoa! I had this prog before, but i didn't know that such things can be done with it! Thanks for this little tutorial!

btw, If a track has 320 kbps enconding, but the cutoff is below 15 khz, it's a reencode not? (The killers vs. Marco V - Mr Brightside Dj scot project).

http://aycu19.webshots.com/image/12378/2000082274780350123_rs.jpg

[Mat00]

Thanks abc! Very useful tutorial! :yes_new:

[abc]

btw, If a track has 320 kbps enconding, but the cutoff is below 15 khz, it's a reencode not? (The killers vs. Marco V - Mr Brightside Dj scot project).

its a re-encode :yes_new:

[Rohit]

Awesome ABC.... thanks a ton...!! really helpful indeed... now we can spot the difference...!!
from where can we download this Adobe Audition.. im sure this wont be a free program so anyone got a cracked version for the same....??

[Air4life]

lol same pics as the once i was gonna post :icon_mrgreen: . wishfull thinking...maybe less re-encodes in the future........

[Vascog]

i didnt know of this way
but im glad its up
i just use my ears to hear if its 320 or not
320 sounds FULL
highs are crisp
bass is warm
mids are loud

[rubik]

www.isohunt.com (http://www.isohunt.com) has full cracked version champ

[abc]

please no download discussions here

[Rohit]

lol same pics as the once i was gonna post :icon_mrgreen: . wishfull thinking...maybe less re-encodes in the future........

yeah... since now we all have fair enough idea of this encoding thing...

[balabek]

You should have put a "Thank You!" button for this topic. :D
It helps a lot. Though I don't have Adobe Audition, I get the theoretical part of this discussion.

[Arcana]

All the information i would ever want to know about pure 320....thank you abc !

[Hossa]

im confused mate..

what line are you talking about, i can hardly tell the difference between each picture except for the dark parts!

[abc]

im talking about this line

http://img247.imageshack.us/img247/9986/lineoo4.png

[Hossa]

ahhh i see it now, thanks for clarification

think i need glasses.

[novaliner]

thanks for this tutorial .. good to know that

[yrmu2004]

Thanks for this tutorial. I was wondering, what program can we use to identify whether a mp3 was encoded using Lame vs. FHG.

[MaxLink]

How can I avoid this situation?

From having the full spectrum of the wav of Home Club Mix to having it with a little cut at 16 KHz when I encode it to 320 kbps CBR with LAME 3.97 using winLAME

Which encoder would you recomend me? Even if it still uses LAME but using another program.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v667/MaxLink/HomeClubMixWAV.png

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v667/MaxLink/HomeClubMix320kbpsCBRLAME3.png

[abc]

you cannot avoit cut in frequncies, mp3 goes with a loss in quality every way

as i know the lame encoder is the best.

[MaxLink]

you cannot avoit cut in frequncies, mp3 goes with a loss in quality every way

as i know the lame encoder is the best.

I wasn't refering to avoid cuts in frequency, I know mp3 is lossy but I was refering to the cuts at 16 kHz because you said that you saw that as a reencode to 320 kbps when as you can see in the image, the lame encoder is doing that little cut.



So if you got a 320 with a cutoff at 16khz encoded by lame its most likely a reencode.
If the encoder is FHG it is possible that the file is still a real due to the fact stated above.

[abc]

hmm, i think now i understand you. i dont know the way to avoid cut at 16 k but there must be other encoders that dont do that (for example the encoder what audiojelly uses is so good that their mp3s are almost lossless)

sorry mate i dont know that encoder

[abazaba]

I found this small free program very usefull for checking bitrate and encoder info...check it out here ---> http://www.guerillasoft.co.uk/encspot/index.html
(http://www.guerillasoft.co.uk/encspot/index.html)
btw the pro version is free now :D

[nikos]

Thanks for sharing the knowledge !!!

[ree]

though i aleady know how to identify a "320k" mp3 whether real or not by Audition,still learn a lot from your tutorial, thanks for you detailed explaination .

[Suicune]

I will up this topic...

I have an high ammount of music who have the line at 16khz, some of them are purchased from beatport...

for the ones coming from beatport, are they re-encode ???

[Darren]

Thanks for this topic, I posted a similar one a while back which Alex E answered, this is very useful to know as i've spot plenty of tracks with questionable quality. As a rule of thumb I only purchase WAV's now, no mistakes with those.

[Sashwat]

thanks! now i can finally re-re-re-organize my music... and this time the RIGHT way! you're the bomb ABC!

[aki]

Ok this thread is a bit old but still I want to ask this question just to be sure.
Does this mean that VBR ALWAYS have the Higher end frequencies cut off? even if it is a VBR with the mean set at 256 or 320 kbit (v0/1)?
I always heard that a VBR track next to a CBR track sounds better (or a better size/quality ratio)
I have a track, Veracocha - Carte Blanche (Cosmic Gate Remix), with a mean bitrate of 264, and it sounds just as crisp(Very crisp) as a flac version, from ASOT I think.(Very crisp)
( I listen through either my sennheiser cx400's+ Cowon S9 or Creative inspire 6100 surround set + Creative X-Fi xtreme gamer, I can distinguish a 192 kbit from 320, but not really from 224/256 kbit from 320)

[Darren]

A helpful guide I found on this issue can be found here, with example graphs.

http://audiohub.org/get/fa/fa.htm

[Roomboter]

I really want to update this thread, because I have a question:

I also have a lot of tracks in my music and they look like this:
http://i54.tinypic.com/2zxzb5h.png

So all these tracks that look like this are re-encodes?
They all come from downloadstores!

Help!

Edit: even the Andy Blueman of Horizonte looks like this! Lol?

[asteski]

I really want to update this thread, because I have a question:

I also have a lot of tracks in my music and they look like this:
http://i54.tinypic.com/2zxzb5h.png

So all these tracks that look like this are re-encodes?
They all come from downloadstores!

Help!

Edit: even the Andy Blueman of Horizonte looks like this! Lol?

If track is cut above 16k then it's re encoded, like in your case.

[Roomboter]

But if even downloadstores offer re-encodes where in allah's name I can get proper music!
Yes, I AM MAD!

Seriously, I cannot believe all those tracks of mine that cut-off at 16khz are really re-encodes...

[asteski]

But if even downloadstores offer re-encodes where in allah's name I can get proper music!
Yes, I AM MAD!

On what page u bought all those tracks?

[Roomboter]

Various. Junodownload, Beatport etc.

[aki]

Just send them a mail which re-encodes you got. You'll get free tracks/store credit in return. I wonder why they re-encode mp3 stuff, they know they are belying the customer! At juno the re-encodes I reported just say 'only with full album' at the wav tickbox. (they still leave them online hoping to get extra cash of the unwary customer)

Here is the spectrum of Suncatcher - Good Times, from Juno.
http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/8360/djonko.png
It has a cut off at 16 k but it is not as harsh/unnatural looking as mp3 re-encoding, what do you think? Roger could also have filtered a lot because he thought it'd sound warrmer

[Roomboter]

Yeah, this is not a re-encode in my opinion. Re-encodes have these horizontal lines.

I just recently looked in my music collection for re-encodes so I don't think I can still send an email.
And I don't think they have other versions than the ones I have...
Why would they?

[aki]

no, but you can get other tracks from the credit you got. I recently made a list of all re-encodes I got (some from 3 months ago) and sent it to them. Got Sign of the times deluxe, Rising Sun and Nocturnal/Kinetic EP for the credit they gave me, plus a few cents left ;)

[Roomboter]

Hmm, but I just can't believe they are all re-encodes...
When I scanned Horizonte (Andy Blueman Remix) it also gave me a horizontal line.
I really cannot believe why this would be a re-encode.
How do people know a horizontal line means a re-encode...

[asteski]

How do people know a horizontal line means a re-encode...

Because horizontal line means distortion in quality. In aki example, everything is clean and smooth, with this line, everything is messy above 16k.

[Roomboter]

Okay thanks. I'll start mailing those damn downloadstores...

[aki]

Stay nice though, they're more likely to help you. Stand firmly though, and come to the point :)

[Roomboter]

Yes, I will of course, but I finally thought my music collection was perfect...
But that is just a fantasy...

[aki]

Let me tell you something, a music collection never gets perfect. (at least for me). , and there are always melodies, pads leads riffs which soothe your mind, but aren't in a production yet. That's why new productions are coming and the new releases section is so vivid. If a collection were to be perfect there wouldn't be added anything to it.
And at some point you will start raising your standards, whether it is quality or taste-wise

For example quality wise, first I was happy with any mp3, then only 224 or higher, than 320, now I am only happy with wav/flac (rather the last one but my dj players only support wav), when it becomes available I will step up to 24bit/96 khz flac.

And subjectively I start raising my standards everytime, first my standard was higher than now, and I was flipping thru songs very quickly. Now I listen more times and give a song more chance, possibly because as a DJ I needed tracks other than bombs, tracks with lower energy to build up a set. Now my collection is big enough, I can raise my standards again.

But I know what you mean, as soon as I have promoship at armada I can kick all my re-encodes out of my collection ;)

[djlucask]

nice tutorial, i'll try this later :D

[djlucask]

didn't worked for me, an FLAC file vs a re-encoded to 32kbps mp3 have the same peaks :(

[Euforix]

So all these tracks that look like this are re-encodes?
They all come from downloadstores!

Help!

Edit: even the Andy Blueman of Horizonte looks like this! Lol?

I think they call it "music business" in these days. :p

[Roomboter]

didn't worked for me, an FLAC file vs a re-encoded to 32kbps mp3 have the same peaks :(

I converted a perfect wav to 192kbps. It now had that horizontal line... And then converted it to 320 and yeah still that horizontal line.
And it looks the exact same as the re-encodes as I have in my list. So I guess I'm screwed!

[thijsje]

Okay thanks. I'll start mailing those damn downloadstores...

Heard something about wavs at discogs.com

Don't buy 'em as they are re-encodes from mp3 file at all!

[Roomboter]

I never buy mp3's from discogs.

[thijsje]

Indeed, to be honest I hate that feature... Discogs is for hardcopy music!

[Euforix]

Indeed, to be honest I hate that feature... Discogs is for hardcopy music!

...And hardcopy = FTW!

[thijsje]

...And hardcopy = FTW!

Without hardcopy no Discogs, and there's Discogs so why not collect hardcopies? :D

[Euforix]

Without hardcopy no Discogs, and there's Discogs so why not collect hardcopies? :D

Yes, absolutely.

[Darren]

I thought I'd post here, after upgrading my kit with a good soundcard (Asus Xonar Essence ST) and quality headphones (AKG 702's) the differences you hear in quality become even more marked.

It's making me want to buy a lot more WAV's in all honesty, bass is tighter, seperation clearer, mids are crisper.

It's a three pronged issue, you need a well mastered record in good quality, played by a system which will benefit from those both. Lose one of the three and the record sounds caked over in mud sadly :(

I've got thousands of tracks in my collection, but the amount which actually tick the boxes in all 3 is nowhere near that :(

[Roomboter]

I have a few wav's which I don't know if they are true wavs. Maybe you guys can help?

The first one is a re-encodes 320kbps right?
In the spectrums of the other three I see horizontal lines, but I think they are wavs.

http://i53.tinypic.com/16kucck.png
http://i51.tinypic.com/1531kz6.png
http://i54.tinypic.com/50ggi.png
http://i55.tinypic.com/4vom7o.png

Thanks!

[aki]

1st is re-encode yes, only the second I'm doubting whether it might be an mp3. 3rd/4th defo wav, it seems like the producer took some mp3 samples in his production (that's why some parts have the cut visible, but it is layered over many other sounds so many samples go over that cut, and the cut appears more in the background)

[Roomboter]

Hmm, okay, thanks!

Does somebody else know the second one?

[djlucask]

maybe the second one is an variable bitrate re-encode?

[Roomboter]

maybe the second one is an variable bitrate re-encode?

Based on?

[aki]

100% sure no VBR. the waveform would be way more edgy and thinned out if that was true

[djlucask]

100% sure no VBR. the waveform would be way more edgy and thinned out if that was true

yeah, just tested here

[Roomboter]

So, the last three are 100% wav's?

[aki]

3rd/4th 100%, 2nd 90%

[Darren]

Which of these is MP3 and which is WAV :p

1. http://i536.photobucket.com/albums/ff325/darrenhonour/Hotlinking%20TF/DanielKandi-Child.jpg?t=1287439021

2. http://i536.photobucket.com/albums/ff325/darrenhonour/Hotlinking%20TF/ForYou-Envio.jpg?t=1287439057

3. http://i536.photobucket.com/albums/ff325/darrenhonour/Hotlinking%20TF/BlueBird-SunnyLax.jpg

[aki]

the first is mp3, the second and 3rd seem wav, although I am not entirely sure about the second one.

[Darren]

the first is mp3, the second and 3rd seem wav, although I am not entirely sure about the second one.

Well they're all MP3's

Just showing it's hard to be sure looking at graphs like this. Some tracks are specifically made with frequencies being avoided, for example the Blizzard have stated in the past they don't introduce the highs as they sound close to white noise.

Tracks are:

1. Daniel Kandi - Child
2. For You - Envio
3. Blue Bird - Sunny Lax

[aki]

haha wanted to edit, but was a bit unsure whether I should consider 'thinning' of freq. peaks a lot. Well I do apparently xD

[Roomboter]

I would have said that the first is WAV and the second and third mp3. Althought, second looks like wav too though...
Yeah, it is hard.
The Daniel Kandi - Child 320 mp3 en WAV are almost the same (I tested it). Pretty weird.

[Darren]

I would have said that the first is WAV and the second and third mp3. Althought, second looks like wav too though...
Yeah, it is hard.
The Daniel Kandi - Child 320 mp3 en WAV are almost the same (I tested it). Pretty weird.

Some have very little difference in graphs, the easiest way to tell is looking at the frequency peaks. On MP3's you'll usually find either a harsh cut off or degradation in this area because of the encoding process. I was just pointing out that on many tracks it is a bit of a lottery. The web shops shouldn't run business like this but they do so I always check purchases on frequency graph. Some I just have to take in good faith as being as the described quality.

[Roomboter]

Okay, this one is pretty hard. 320 or re-encode?
I think 320 tough...

http://i52.tinypic.com/2qiy8hc.png

[Darren]

320 I say

[aki]

hard


I hope u were sarcastic :p

[Roomboter]

I hope u were sarcastic :p

Actually not. :P I thought 320, but the small line at 16khz made me doubt a bit...
You can call me a noob now. Go ahead, I don't mind... :P

[Roomboter]

Okay, I have this artist called Scope DJ. Now I put some of his tracks in Adobe and they all look like this:
http://i51.tinypic.com/2pq10xs.png

Or this one:
http://i54.tinypic.com/10zxzdj.png

One of this tracks looks like this and when I convert it to 192 VBR it stays actually the same...:
http://i52.tinypic.com/2u77e40.png

So what do you guys think?

All other Hardstyle tracks I have are real 320kbps... So I think it's in the mastering of this artist or so...

[aki]

I think he mastered in mp3 :x_emo:


Actually not. :P I thought 320, but the small line at 16khz made me doubt a bit...
You can call me a noob now. Go ahead, I don't mind... :P

You are now officially a noob in analyzing audioquality, happy now? :p

xD

doesn't matter!

[Roomboter]

So... Also WAV's will look like this?

[aki]

lol.. made a mix today and accidentally left my mixer in 96 khz sampling rate. I record with audition so I directly analyzed the frequencies.

I only used 44.1 khz files which have a frequency cap at 22050 hz.. look till where the frequencies go :p
http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/311/hfcontent.png
I wonder how this is possible..

[Roomboter]

Aki, I can't send you anymore messages because your inbox is full. :P
Please remove some messages! ;)

[Roomboter]

Okay. I have some tracks Of First State's Changing Lanes Extended Versions. This one is definitely a WAV (Cross The Line):
http://i54.tinypic.com/28juhi.png

But this one looks like this (Reverie):
http://i53.tinypic.com/nbc6c4.png

But when I convert it to 320 it looks like this:
http://i53.tinypic.com/m8k591.png

There is a difference, so does that mean the first one of Reverie is a WAV? I also have this with Mojave:
This is the ''WAV":
http://i53.tinypic.com/oielnl.png

This is the 320 MP3:
http://i54.tinypic.com/n4fej7.png

Here you see a bigger difference.
But Brave for example is definitely a WAV...
That's why I cannot believe some of the extended versions are WAV and others not.

So I'm just wondering what you guys think!

[aki]

You can see that they are real, because the cut off frequency is not completely 'flat', it has a little 'bolling'.
And with the 320 mp3 you can see that the high frequency peaks look strange, thinned out.

[Roomboter]

Thanks.

[Decebal]

1. Why not use FLAC if you care so much about the quality?

2. I believe, but am not certain, that if an mp3 were to be transcoded to FLAC then it would be obvious from the bitrate of the flac that it is not perfect, so that is another pro