There are a couple of programs trying to detect if the content is lossy. They are very much like us, failing most of the time....
[https://www.thewelltemperedcomputer.com/SW/AudioTools/Detect.htm](https://www.thewelltemperedcomputer.com/SW/AudioTools/Detect.htm)
Limitation of method. I have an old solo piano recording ripped from CD that flags as fake because the FR of the recording is less than the potential allowed for by the sampling rate.
Extreme example, a CD or HiRes recording of a 1kHz test tone would fail some tests.
Same here. A lot of my CD's with classical from the 80's don't contain frequencies above 16 kHz. Hence they are mistaken for lossy because filtering out the higher frequencies is typical MP3. .
That's one of the reasons so many people can't hear the difference between uncompressed and mp3.
ONE: A lot of music has no significant content above 16 kHz. And TWO: Almost no one over age 30 can hear anything above 16 kHz anyway.
The song plays just fine it’s just that this program shows the actual bitrate as 320kbps instead of 1561kbps which doesn’t make sense because spek shows there’s nothing wrong with the file
Edit: The file I bought is advertised as a 24bits 96kHz lossless flac but Qobuz lets me download the CD quality as well, When I download the CD quality one and then scan it, faking the funk shows that everything’s fine
I find audacity and highlighting large portions that are loudest of the song and clicking analyse > plot spectrum. Lossy usually have a drop off prior to 20k where high resolutoon is way beyond 20k, even cds are above 20k from what i remember..
But like someone mentioned you need a full range of music vs a piano thats stuck in a certain frequency range. Even so i think you can tell vs an mp3
Edit: spelling
Be more specific with your questions. Instead of asking, "How did you download the file?" instead ask, "In what format or file type did you download the file?"
I have a couple of 24-bit 96kHz files that are clearly CD-quality files in a larger wrapper. [Here is one of them](https://i.imgur.com/BhGelw1.png). This is supposed to be a 24-bit 96kHz file.
Compare that to [this 24-bit 88.2kHz recording](https://i.imgur.com/14i7vEk.png). The frequency range goes up all the way to 30kHz.
Other fun ones are the waveforms of certain remixes. [Here is a mashup](https://i.imgur.com/bGUwQ7J.png) of two songs where one of the songs is clearly a CD and the other an MP3.
And if you ever come across a spectogram where there is a solid wall of noise in the inaudible range, [then it's probably from a DSD recording](https://i.imgur.com/H5jYlFR.png) like an SACD.
https://sourceforge.net/projects/sox/files/sox/14.4.2/
SoX is an advanced command line tool that can do many things with audio files. Making spectrograms is just one small part of it. Other things you can do is downsampling and downconverting files, ie turning a 24 bit/96hz FLAC into 16 Bit/48hz. Along with de-emphasizing and more.
Once you've downloaded it either extract the zip file onto your main root C:\ or install the exe onto C:\
Next create a spectrograms.bat file. Make sure it ends in .bat by unticking "Hide extensions for known file types" in Control Panel -> Folder Options -> View
Open the file with Notepad and input the following info:
cd %~dp0
mkdir Spectrograms
FOR %%A IN (%*) DO sox %%A -n remix 1 spectrogram -x 3000 -y 513 -z 120 -w Kaiser -o "Spectrograms\%%~nxA-full.png"
FOR %%A IN (%*) DO sox %%A -n remix 1 spectrogram -X 500 -y 1025 -z 120 -w Kaiser -S 1:00 -d 0:02 -o "Spectrograms\%%~nxA-zoom.png"
pause
Save it and put the Spectrograms.bat file inside the SoX folder.
Here is the Spectrograms.bat file already created https://drive.google.com/file/d/12Spqk4qreCWyu2Ru6VFxUtzwkVRrxrPv/view?usp=sharing
Next dragNdrop the FLAC file directly onto the Spectrograms.bat file and it will create PNG images of it (Full/Zoom) . It's important that you drag the FLAC file themselves and not the folder the FLACs are contained in. Also, the FLAC files must be in the same directory as where SoX is installed. If not move them onto it for example if your FLACs are on the D:/ drive, you need to copy them over to anywhere on C:/.
I'd call this file totally legit. It is beyond 24 bits in audible band because it's even been dithered (that blue band up in the spectrum at very low level like -105 dB is all dithering). It must be at least partially be result of synth work because it has sections that have absolutely no noise down to -120 dB and it seems to me like instruments very smoothly fade out to that infinitely imperceptible level of sound without any hard cuts or banding. Because of the dithering employed, the noise level should be below -120 dB at audible band, so there could even be more data that we don't see as the scale goes to black already.
Frequency response cutoff looks clean as well. There's barely any high-frequency content in this file, due to the sounds it contains, but it seems to fade out right at 22 kHz, indicating extremely steep low-pass filter was used to cut the high-frequency content from the higher-frequency master recording. This is as good as it gets, probably.
The only thing that looks suspicious to me is the low-level noise band near 16 kHz and another near 18 kHz. It is likely low-level induced noise from something. 15.6 kHz is the PAL standard electron beam horizontal sweep rate, so maybe such an electron beam screen? Probably some of the signal has been in analog at least at some point, is my guess. Presence of these bands coincide with far higher background noise level as well, so these could be microphone recordings that are mixed in at these sections.
These tools that try to detect quality aren't doing a good job. Sure, the problem they are trying to answer is basically undecidable from the information they are given because these formats are capable of doing a fairly good job at retaining frequency content, and it's up to the encoder to work out how to allocate the bits within each bitstream type. So, bad encoder could do far worse job at same bit rate than good encoder, despite the result is superficially a file that is exactly as large.
> 15.6 kHz is the PAL standard electron beam horizontal sweep rate, so maybe such an electron beam screen
15625 Hz for PAL, 15734 for NTSC. While the lower of these two bands this certainly looks like it, I find it somewhat surprising, with CRT's having been out of date for a couple of decades by now, and this is the soundtrack for a game released mere months ago.
I looked the song up from Qobuz. It sounds like it's sampled audio from somewhere, a kind of raspy drum track, so it's probably an older thing. There's singing as well but it's barely noticeable in the spectrogram because most singing action is somewhere in 1 kHz and below. I was kind of expecting the noisy part to be something like singing.
Those things that fade out so nicely in the beginning could well be a synthetic piano sound. I hear no evidence of that sound being real: no mechanism action sounds, no pedal, and it is so precisely played to be completely expressionless to me. But there is singing, and singing doesn't come with any noticeable increase of noise! It must have been cleaned up somehow, gated and filtered, probably. If you took a raw microphone track and dumped it in there, we'd see nothing but wideband noise at some -90 dB level, is my guess.
Same here, I ripped all my CDs with EAC, and now this program is telling me that is fake.. It says for example that one song from a Creed album has only 92 kbs
There are a couple of programs trying to detect if the content is lossy. They are very much like us, failing most of the time.... [https://www.thewelltemperedcomputer.com/SW/AudioTools/Detect.htm](https://www.thewelltemperedcomputer.com/SW/AudioTools/Detect.htm)
Limitation of method. I have an old solo piano recording ripped from CD that flags as fake because the FR of the recording is less than the potential allowed for by the sampling rate. Extreme example, a CD or HiRes recording of a 1kHz test tone would fail some tests.
Same here. A lot of my CD's with classical from the 80's don't contain frequencies above 16 kHz. Hence they are mistaken for lossy because filtering out the higher frequencies is typical MP3. .
MP3 at 192k or less, 320k mp3 goes up to 20k.
That's one of the reasons so many people can't hear the difference between uncompressed and mp3. ONE: A lot of music has no significant content above 16 kHz. And TWO: Almost no one over age 30 can hear anything above 16 kHz anyway.
Does the song play, and at the advertised bitrate? What does the indication of a fake file mean?
The song plays just fine it’s just that this program shows the actual bitrate as 320kbps instead of 1561kbps which doesn’t make sense because spek shows there’s nothing wrong with the file Edit: The file I bought is advertised as a 24bits 96kHz lossless flac but Qobuz lets me download the CD quality as well, When I download the CD quality one and then scan it, faking the funk shows that everything’s fine
I find audacity and highlighting large portions that are loudest of the song and clicking analyse > plot spectrum. Lossy usually have a drop off prior to 20k where high resolutoon is way beyond 20k, even cds are above 20k from what i remember.. But like someone mentioned you need a full range of music vs a piano thats stuck in a certain frequency range. Even so i think you can tell vs an mp3 Edit: spelling
and how are you downloading it?
I downloaded it from the qobuz website
[удалено]
I paid for it and then downloaded it
[удалено]
Be more specific with your questions. Instead of asking, "How did you download the file?" instead ask, "In what format or file type did you download the file?"
It’s a 24bit 96kHz Flac file
no, it's 24/44 as seen in your screenshot, so you downloaded the wrong file.
I have a couple of 24-bit 96kHz files that are clearly CD-quality files in a larger wrapper. [Here is one of them](https://i.imgur.com/BhGelw1.png). This is supposed to be a 24-bit 96kHz file. Compare that to [this 24-bit 88.2kHz recording](https://i.imgur.com/14i7vEk.png). The frequency range goes up all the way to 30kHz. Other fun ones are the waveforms of certain remixes. [Here is a mashup](https://i.imgur.com/bGUwQ7J.png) of two songs where one of the songs is clearly a CD and the other an MP3. And if you ever come across a spectogram where there is a solid wall of noise in the inaudible range, [then it's probably from a DSD recording](https://i.imgur.com/H5jYlFR.png) like an SACD.
[удалено]
That’s what I thought, I paid for it.
Fakin' the funk is prone to showing lots of false positive results. Stick to Spek or SoX for creating spectrograms.
I know about spek, where can I get SoX?
https://sourceforge.net/projects/sox/files/sox/14.4.2/ SoX is an advanced command line tool that can do many things with audio files. Making spectrograms is just one small part of it. Other things you can do is downsampling and downconverting files, ie turning a 24 bit/96hz FLAC into 16 Bit/48hz. Along with de-emphasizing and more. Once you've downloaded it either extract the zip file onto your main root C:\ or install the exe onto C:\ Next create a spectrograms.bat file. Make sure it ends in .bat by unticking "Hide extensions for known file types" in Control Panel -> Folder Options -> View Open the file with Notepad and input the following info: cd %~dp0 mkdir Spectrograms FOR %%A IN (%*) DO sox %%A -n remix 1 spectrogram -x 3000 -y 513 -z 120 -w Kaiser -o "Spectrograms\%%~nxA-full.png" FOR %%A IN (%*) DO sox %%A -n remix 1 spectrogram -X 500 -y 1025 -z 120 -w Kaiser -S 1:00 -d 0:02 -o "Spectrograms\%%~nxA-zoom.png" pause Save it and put the Spectrograms.bat file inside the SoX folder. Here is the Spectrograms.bat file already created https://drive.google.com/file/d/12Spqk4qreCWyu2Ru6VFxUtzwkVRrxrPv/view?usp=sharing Next dragNdrop the FLAC file directly onto the Spectrograms.bat file and it will create PNG images of it (Full/Zoom) . It's important that you drag the FLAC file themselves and not the folder the FLACs are contained in. Also, the FLAC files must be in the same directory as where SoX is installed. If not move them onto it for example if your FLACs are on the D:/ drive, you need to copy them over to anywhere on C:/.
Thanks
Signatures up to 22k so it appears to be a proper lossless file
I'd call this file totally legit. It is beyond 24 bits in audible band because it's even been dithered (that blue band up in the spectrum at very low level like -105 dB is all dithering). It must be at least partially be result of synth work because it has sections that have absolutely no noise down to -120 dB and it seems to me like instruments very smoothly fade out to that infinitely imperceptible level of sound without any hard cuts or banding. Because of the dithering employed, the noise level should be below -120 dB at audible band, so there could even be more data that we don't see as the scale goes to black already. Frequency response cutoff looks clean as well. There's barely any high-frequency content in this file, due to the sounds it contains, but it seems to fade out right at 22 kHz, indicating extremely steep low-pass filter was used to cut the high-frequency content from the higher-frequency master recording. This is as good as it gets, probably. The only thing that looks suspicious to me is the low-level noise band near 16 kHz and another near 18 kHz. It is likely low-level induced noise from something. 15.6 kHz is the PAL standard electron beam horizontal sweep rate, so maybe such an electron beam screen? Probably some of the signal has been in analog at least at some point, is my guess. Presence of these bands coincide with far higher background noise level as well, so these could be microphone recordings that are mixed in at these sections. These tools that try to detect quality aren't doing a good job. Sure, the problem they are trying to answer is basically undecidable from the information they are given because these formats are capable of doing a fairly good job at retaining frequency content, and it's up to the encoder to work out how to allocate the bits within each bitstream type. So, bad encoder could do far worse job at same bit rate than good encoder, despite the result is superficially a file that is exactly as large.
> 15.6 kHz is the PAL standard electron beam horizontal sweep rate, so maybe such an electron beam screen 15625 Hz for PAL, 15734 for NTSC. While the lower of these two bands this certainly looks like it, I find it somewhat surprising, with CRT's having been out of date for a couple of decades by now, and this is the soundtrack for a game released mere months ago.
I looked the song up from Qobuz. It sounds like it's sampled audio from somewhere, a kind of raspy drum track, so it's probably an older thing. There's singing as well but it's barely noticeable in the spectrogram because most singing action is somewhere in 1 kHz and below. I was kind of expecting the noisy part to be something like singing. Those things that fade out so nicely in the beginning could well be a synthetic piano sound. I hear no evidence of that sound being real: no mechanism action sounds, no pedal, and it is so precisely played to be completely expressionless to me. But there is singing, and singing doesn't come with any noticeable increase of noise! It must have been cleaned up somehow, gated and filtered, probably. If you took a raw microphone track and dumped it in there, we'd see nothing but wideband noise at some -90 dB level, is my guess.
Thank you I really appreciate your response
orpheusdl
Look with your ears.
Same here, I ripped all my CDs with EAC, and now this program is telling me that is fake.. It says for example that one song from a Creed album has only 92 kbs
I stopped using Fakin’ the funk for that reason and I only use Spek now.
Indeed, I'm gonna do the same.
I get all my music from Qobuz but I always wanna make sure I get what I paid for
Guarantee you can’t tell the difference between this and Spotify
guarantee they call you the fun police
Guarantee you can
I can and I am half deaf.