>keep hearing good things about soulseek
>go there and download a normal 320 kbps CBR album
>open it in audacity
>see pic related
>never go back to soulseek
>pray to my flac gods and cry
something you might get at what.cd just for comparison
why haven't you joined the what.cd masterrace yet?
I've actually transcoded lots of 128 kbps stuff to 320 kbps CBR and FLAC. Usually new releases. It's fun seeing shitloads of people downloading new stuff in 320 cbr or flac when it's just a 128 kbps cbr mp3. kek
except i definintly would. 128 kbps is really noticeable. but hey, why don't you download 128 kbps only? maybe you can download your music from youtube since you don't know the difference..
Well MP3 128 kbps CBR means that 128 kb of data in a file are processed in every second and this is a constant bitrate. These types of files have a reduced size if you compare them to a lossless file. This is because they have frequency cutoffs at about 16 kHz if i'm not mistaken. This means you don't hear anything above 16 kHz. A lossless file has no data loss and no frequency cutoff. This means you can hear every frequency your ears are able to hear, providing you have the right equipment.
It depends on your equipment, but almost everyone can hear the quality loss at 128 kbps. 192 kbps is considered transparent for most people though.
Some test results if you're interested: http://pastebin.com/S3B3YX3R
How do I see this? Just go in "Spectrum log(f)" view and see if the spectrogram seems cut off at the top?
You can download transcodes everywhere
I got a friend to grab a V0 from what.cd to me once and it was cutting straight at 15k, making it 128 or smth
So yeah, it's just about care and selection, I've grabbed plenty of good encodes from soulseek
Hell I downloaded a full flac discography from rutracker once and it was all 256 transcoded
I just did a test with random "320 kbps" tracks from different releases downloaded from Soulseek. Fifteen were legit, four (mostly from older releases) were transcodes, one I'm not sure about.
(One or two looked funny too.)
What if there was a new lossy codec that provided transparent quality with a .15 compression ratio? Would you keep your 8mb mp3 files or switch to the new format and keep all your files as 1mb? Would you be that guy?
i would probably switch in time but i wouldnt be in any kind of rush and would still be able to listen to my mp3s without having some kind of panic attack or feeling like the listening experience was lessened somehow
AAC is patent encumbered though. I assume you're on a Mac or PC to suggest ALAC and AAC. I'm not sure if AAC or OGG is better at full transparency, but I know OGG fucking destroys everything at low bitrates, providing near transparency at like 100~kbps.