Hi! I found the latest album by Shania Twain - Up on the net. It was encoded using 192kbps so I downloaded it thinking it was high quality. While listening to it, it sounded more like if it was encoded at 96kbps or something, the swooschy flanger effect you know. I downloaded another version, also 192kbps and this version sounded slightly different although not good. One album was encoded using Lame 3.90 and the other 3.92, both stereo.

I do not have the original CD so I do not have anything to compare it with. Does anyone of you guys know anything about this? Have you encountered any albums where 192kbps really isn't enough?

It might be that the CD is copyprotected, I don't really know if it is since I don't have it. Or that the CD actually should sound that odd.

Heh.. I suspect the usual: re-encoding from xing or transcoding from wma...

Download EncSpot or mp3guessenc and find out which encoder was used.

As I stated in my first post, one album was encoded using Lame 3.90 and the other used 3.92. Both albums were encoded in stereo mode.

I seriously doubt that they were re-encoded from some other format. I have never heard of any groups that are releasing albums on the scene that way.

So, if the files were encoded in pure stereo mode, then each channel will get half of the bitrate, wich is 192/2=96
That's why the files sound like encoded in 96 kbps

hm I think 32k is enough for shania twain

well no I didn't listen to the album yet

OK, have found two new different versions of this album. One encoded with Lame 3.90 stereo and this version actually sounds much better. The other is encoded using Xing, Joint stereo. It sounds at least better then the two first versions I have, although not that good. It had skips in it as well, so that version is gone anyhow.

Btw, Cest la vie... dancing queen?

Oh, and the album is not for me. I have an FTP with tons of music for my friends, and this album was requested.

Well, sounds like another case of a clan that doesn't know their ass from their encoder settings.

[Off topic]
The owner of this board does not like discussing illegal file sharing here. This is stated in the Hydrogen Audio Terms of Service.

I have also come across a CD (Eminem 8 Mile) which was encoded with Lame 3.92 192CBR stereo , no lowpass which sounds terrible but I couldn't find it anywhere ells. I think some people encode in a certain way if you try to force then to change they won't encode for you at all.

There is nothing illegal with sharing files in a limited way with your friends. At least not in Sweden where I am from.

Regardless of your local laws, these are still the rules of this board. This server happens to be located in the US, and at least here, it is illegal to discuss file sharing of copyrighted materials without at the very least both parties having paid for the content. Simply mentioning ripping groups and file sharing is not illegal itself, but it is far enough off topic and enough of a grey area that it does not belong here.

Sheeshh.....
Us Scandinavians are all a bunch of wicked pirates!!

Actually this is wrong. Even in stereo mode, one channel can borrow bits from the other channel if it needs to and there are bits available. The difference between stereo and joint stereo is that normal stereo doesn't take advantage of redundancy, etc. Only dual mono works the way you said.

I don't even know how you managed to get this idea out of my post. I never said anything about Scandinavians being "wicked pirates", I didn't make any judgements about file sharing being wrong, or single out any particular group.

If you managed to get this out of my post, it's because you're putting words in my mouth -- it's your own notion, not mine.

All I'm saying is that I don't want anything related to illegal file sharing (established by the laws of the country in which this server resides, completely unrelated to my thoughts on the matter) discussed on Hydrogenaudio. This should be a simple and non-offensive request.

Woo Woo Dibrom. Chill-out - you got me wrong - sorry.
I just like adding a bit sarcasm.

The definition of sarcasm:



Given that, I can't see the need for sarcasm in response to my simple and non-offensive requests, which btw, were clearly laid out in the rules when this person joined the board.

But at any rate, I accept your apology.

OK, so I guess you are talking about rule number nine. But, I have not been talking about how I got the files and not how any other can obtain those files. There are no links to the files. And I don't understand how there can be a law against just talking about copying files. Is there no freedom of speech in the US?

Anyway, that side-thread is way off topic and I would like to continue on the original thread, or to close it. The version of the album that sounds good is encoded in stereo, 192kbps using Lame 3.90 and that is exactly the same way another version is encoded that sounds horrible. I guess it has got nothing to do with the encoding itself but rather that the crappy one was copied using a crappy cd-rom or that the CD has some kind of copy protection that only some players can bypass. It is just strange that the effect was a swooschy sound. That is not my previous experience of copy protection.

...transcoded from a lower bitrate mp3?

Yup. Re/transcoded would be my guess too. I happen to run into such files some time.

Try putting the file into a spectrum analyser. I'll bet you a beverage that It'll clearly show that it cannot be a direct encoding from the original wavefile

moonroy, I sure hope you and your friends buy the music you do like, or you are defineatly stealing someone else's work... I'd be pissed if I were an artist who just had my work stolen...

OK, the first clearly crappy version had a cutoff at 14khz. Don't know what encoder might have been used at first to obtain that kind of results. Might be a transcoding as you say.

The second, Xing encoded had a cutoff at 16khz. Sounded better than the 14khz at least.

The third, that sounds the best is cutting off at 18.5khz. Sounds a bit low to me, but for MP3 I guess that is sort of OK.

I guess I should have done that analysis before asking the question here, sorry about that. Didn't think about it.

Btw, what with this flaming about downloaded stuff? Many of the posts on this forum is about non-purchased material, and I didn't see much of talk about that in any of those posts I checked out. And yeah, I have enough money to buy whatever album I like and I do buy lots of albums every year, go to concerts and so on. I download music, listen to it and if it is good enough to listen to I buy it. Simple as that. I would never pay for an album by Shania Twain though

Just to add my opinion regarding this...if I was an artist I would prefer to have my work spread through such a free advertising way and earn stuff from the concerts/gigs after my name will be well known. That's just me though...so when I ever record anything, you have my permission to copy it as you like

And Moonroy...even if you seriously doubt that those albums were re-encoded, you might have to realize that the world is not really perfect. Antagonism and ranks spoil even the "virtuous" personalities

Yeah, sure it's good in that way, but what good does free "advertising" if it ends up with no one buying your music? It's understandable that no one wants to pay for poor music, but when someone download something they find good and keep on listening to it for a forseenable future without buying it, that's defineatly pure theft... That's one of the reasons why I never share music with people who never buy any records at all... I happend to respect the work of most artists (except larger mainstream musicians, their music sucks anyway 99.9% of the time)... It's not charity you know...

As I mentioned most artists truly make the living out of concerts/gigs. Of course I never meant to say (and never did anyway) that people shouldn't buy original cds. I personally think that companies aren't really needed anymore in order for an album to get from the creator to the listener. What if I didn't buy the album but I sent some money (via any way) to its creator? (rhetorical question of course)

Still...this issue has been discussed countless times in the past and I'm not willing to open it again

I tell all these though while having bought more than 1200 original CDs myself...