Hi, can someone help me out here with these screenshots? I've noticed a lot of mp3 albums I have are encoded using FHG rather then Lame encoder. I know how to check a Lame encoded file to see if it's legit and not been transcoded, but I can't read FHG encoded files at all, they look like transcodes to me?
I loaded a few of the files in Audacity and took some screenshots of the spectrals for someone here that knows a bit more about this to take a look at and let me know what they think. The files are all 320kps FHG encoded mp3's, are they looking like that in the screenshots?
http://imgur.com/a/PaxZv
I'm a bit of a noob with this and would appreciate some help. Thanks
I know how to check a Lame encoded file to see if it's legit and not been transcoded,
Really???
MP3 is lossy. We know data is going to be thrown away. Would you rather have a file with a good looking spectrogram or a file with good sound?
If you don't want lossy compression, don't use lossy compression!
A lot of work has gone into MP3 encoding to make the best sound, and as far as I know no effort has gone into making it "look good". But, you may be able to play with the settings to get a better looking spectrogram, while possibly getting worse sound.
If you buy your MP3s (or AACs) from a legitimate source, you can be reasonably sure that they were encoded from a lossless original. Or, you can buy the CD and make the MP3 yourself.
Eh, ok?! Totally not what I was asking about.
I just wanted someone to give me their opinion on the screenshots I posted and let me know if the files looked like transcodes.
I always noticed a difference between lame encoded 320s and FHG encoded 320s. I know there's a difference in the two encoders and how they work, I'm just not able to positively read the spectrals on the FHG encodes.
The files are not my encodes, they are from various different sources, they are all dj mixes that came straight from the dj's themselves.
There is no way to know whether the files have been transcoded or not.
Eh, ok?! Totally not what I was asking about.
You should said "totally not what I intended to ask".
Fact 1: You asked such a question in Hydrogenaudio
Fact 2: The question is about using questionable methodology (here in hydrogenaudio at least) to know about the quality of audio
Fact 3: You also added in the question unneeded information about other methodologies that you use in your daily habbits related to audio quality that do not addere to the practices of hydrogenaudio.
So, it's like if you asked a police for assistance to open a stranger's door and wonder why you got arrested as an answer.