Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Spectral Analysis question [I don't know how to read it]

  1. #1
    Bakuretsu Hunter Chocolate Misu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    I'm On A BOAT!!
    Posts
    10,799

    Spectral Analysis question [I don't know how to read it]

    I just found something I was looking for but I need to know if it's actual 320. I took a pic of the Audacity spectral but I've never actually learned how to read the thing. Can anyone tell me if this is true 320?


  2. #2
    Audiophile Impersonator
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    168
    I can't say either, but i do know you'll need to change your settings a bit.
    Your spectrum goes up to 7K only, while 44.1KHz audio can have frequencies as high as 22050 Hz, so you should up the max a bit in your preferences.
    Also, whenever i saw others checking this stuff on forums, they always asked to zoom in so that you see one or two beats of the song only, and then you can see enough detail to tell.

  3. #3
    Bakuretsu Hunter Chocolate Misu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    I'm On A BOAT!!
    Posts
    10,799
    *fiddles around with the preferences*

    Is this better?




  4. #4
    Captain Hailer TheSparktankô 2.1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    by the coffee pot
    Posts
    17,748
    Well, finding out if it's 320 is not entirely easy.
    If you have a previous version of, say 160, you can compare the two. If they're identical, you got the same thing only transcoded to fake 320.

    Each encoder works differently when compressing to a lossy format. Mp3 has several different encoders: Lame being the most popular. There's also FhG (Fraunhofer) and Helix. Each of the encoders work differently, and they have different settings. And they also have different versions.
    Not a lot of people today use the newest versions of Lame or FLAC.

    Different music also work differently. Some have better results with different settings that other music.


    This looks to have a little more compression involved than a typical 320, imo.
    320 settings usually let a little more peak through the 16k line. (or sometimes up to the 20k line)
    And 320 typically has a very "full" spectrum up to the 16k line.
    Bitrates of very low quality (128 and lower) usually have empty spaces of no data. No soft noises or silences...just that the data....doesn't exist...
    almost as if...it had no soul... O_O

    Summary:
    If you're upgrading from a lower bitrate, compare the two and see which one looks better. If your newly acquired 320 looks to be the same as your lower version, blast it with piss.
    ʰᵃᶦᶫ ʰʸᵈʳᵃ

  5. #5
    Is A Man tangotreats's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    4,588
    It would be rather useful to know the source here... as Sparktank observes, knowing where the music came from (vintage, media, genre, etc) can influence any competent examination of a spectral scan. If, for example, this is a modern pop album filled with high frequencies, it's going to look different to a fifty year-old recording or a solo piano. As the good fellow also points out, commonly accepted "techniques" for reading the scans are based around the idiosyncrasies of particular encoders - old LAME, new LAME, Helix, FhG, (or even the same version with different settings invoked) could all produce very different - and very misleading - images.

    In short... who knows? The full frequency spikes (at around 3:15 and 4:15 on the first image) in my eyes would suggest a higher-bitrate initial encode... and they also suggest an older encoder. Could be wrong but I believe most (all?) newer encoders do a hard lowpass whatever the bitrate... so you shouldn't be seeing anything above 19, 20khz tops - since audio above 16khz is almost inaudible to human ears, it can be thrown away and its bitrate donated to more audible parts of the frequency spectrum.

    Finally, and I know that the people who think music should be heard with your eyes and not your ears will flame me for saying this... but listen to it. Really listen. Train your ears; they will tell you what you want to know with a far greater reliability than some visual representation of an auditory medium.

  6. #6
    Bakuretsu Hunter Chocolate Misu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    I'm On A BOAT!!
    Posts
    10,799
    I assume the source was the cd that came out on the 13th this month (I don't see how else it would've come), so it's not that old. I've been having a really hard time actually finding it not as a 192kbps.

    The tracks sound really good to my ear, but I was planning to share with another community and they're picky about the bitrates. People are always reporting uploads that aren't true.

    It seems this is an awkward thing to figure out so I guess I'll wait and let someone else post it there.

  7. #7
    Audiophile Impersonator
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    168
    Well, what exactly is it? Maybe someone here knows a place where they can grab it for you.

  8. #8
    Bakuretsu Hunter Chocolate Misu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    I'm On A BOAT!!
    Posts
    10,799
    Nah, it's alright I know the hot spots and it's just not out yet.


    NVM this thread anymore.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •