Question about quality of recordings

[Trance2MoveU]

Hey all! I have a question that maybe you can help me with. Like you I have a lot of digital music in varying qualities. I would like to get it in FLAC format if I can, but I bought a lot of it before I knew how good FLAC sounds compared to MP3s. When I look up an album or EP on discogs and the digital file format says 320 mp3, is that the quality with which the track was made? So even if I wanted that EP from the label bandcamp and they offer it in FLAC am I wasting my time?

Here is a link to an EP I currently have in 320 mp3

https://www.discogs.com/release/6732893-Concept-Straight-Forward

They offer it on Concept's bandcamp (and I love to support artists), but if the music was made in mp3 format I didn't think you could up convert.

 

Thanks for your help,

Mdk

[Basilisk]

Usually if it's for sale on Bandcamp it is available in lossless quality (but you can download other formats if you wish). Discogs is a bit strange when it comes to digital formats; usually they don't list all that are available, so you shouldn't treat that as a theoretical maximum quality level. It is possible that a label/artist might sell transcodes (MP3s converted to lossless audio, which retain the original audio quality level), but rare in my experience. You can get a sense of this by using a spectral analysis tool like Spek, but it takes some skill to operate. All that being said, for home listening purposes you're probably fine with 320k MP3 quality.

[Trance2MoveU]

Thank you Basilisk for that helpful comment. My main concern was that seeing something listed in Discogs (clearly not the end all and be all) as an mp3 and purchasing from bandcamp in flac quality would be a waste of time.

Cheers!

[acid-brain]

Why do you want FLAC? Double blind studies show that MP3 320kbps or even 256kbps sounds equally as good, and takes up much less space.

The only advantage of FLAC is that if you decide to transcode to another format in future, you won't lose quality.

[astralprojection]

ok heres the deal. if you get a release that you think may be a mp3 in disguise, then open it up in audacity since its free. check out the frequency spectrum.

if you see a sharp cut at around 20khz, then its most likely an mp3 in disguise. if you see the cut higher up like 22khz, its more likely a lossless format.

but the point is, most songs that are supplied in mp3 format, i will assume 320kbit for this, will have everything above 22k cut out. and this is good, cause you dont hear it anyway. 

the only reason flac is better than mp3, is for vinyl records, cause they dont have a filter at the end. you can find vinyl records that has information all up to 40khz. 

but since human hearing stops at 22khz (and honestly for most people its 16khz) it really doesnt matter.

 

but that being said, i dont think its right to sell flacs that has been transcoded from mp3s. thats a foul practice. if you buy flac, you expect to see information way above 20khz.  and if you buy mp3, you DONT expect to see anything above 20khz. Ill let you contemplate and realise the rest.

[Basilisk]

On 12/16/2022 at 8:15 AM, astralprojection said:

ok heres the deal. if you get a release that you think may be a mp3 in disguise, then open it up in audacity since its free. check out the frequency spectrum.

if you see a sharp cut at around 20khz, then its most likely an mp3 in disguise. if you see the cut higher up like 22khz, its more likely a lossless format.

Plenty of studios cut ultra-high frequencies in post-processing since they're typically inaudible (if you're not a dog). The thing to look for is a _sharp_ cut (not a fade) _and_ some evidence of blotchy artifacts in those high frequencies. Of course, it's way easier distinguishing low-bitrate MP3s... for 320k, good luck! It can be very tricky without having a known lossless copy to compare.