I’m only using Qobuz and HD Tracks. I’ve never been to the Bandcamp website 
1 Like
It can happen to every platform. Even Qobuz.
I’m checking every file I purchase. I remember buying singles in “hi-res” 24/96 but when I checked the quality it’s was a upscaled mp3.
Qobuz relies on the labels and lables, well they do not always care about stuff like this.
4 Likes
I like highresaudio.com because there is always the information whether a digital booklet is included. That’s the main reason I buy from there. Many releases have no additional information at all, and that’s what bothers me the most about digital media.
If there is a digital booklet that isn’t included on other platforms, it’s also a separate release.
4 Likes
I’ll have to check that one out! I like when a booklet is available too
1 Like
How do you check your songs…now I want to do that!
I believe a spectrogram would make seeing that fairly easy, since by definition an MP3 will be missing some of the highest frequencies (note, the ones it trims are on the very edge of human perception)
an example of what you might be looking for:
4 Likes
Yes, me too, but not all releases have booklets. Actually only a few have. The difference is that you know before you buy if you’re going to get one.
1 Like
I just looked at the website. Looks like it’s Germany only purchasers? Boooo…I like the website though
In general, I agree with @UltimateRiff as it relates to checking your files for quality. As @slipmaxim mentioned, I have also seen a lot of upsampled files. This is (or was) very common on MP3s that were passed around all over the internet. While that is not a big deal, it is for sure when you are paying for the files. I hope this is not moving away from the thread’s intent, but maybe I can help further answer your question.
Here is an example of a MP3 file with a soft filter applied, the MP3 limiter is sort of a 16kHz preset value, so notice the soft cuttoff at approx 16k, although not a hard cut.
This image shows a file with a hard lowpass filter applied, see that anything over 16k is simply chopped off.
Then this is a file without a lowpass filter applied, keeping the spectrum that is considered full for a standard 16bit file.
In the above, the frequency still dies at 20k, but there are many 16bit audio files that do not exceed 20k. Here is a file that utilized the full range of the 44.1kHz of the file. It is an M4A iTunes file, but I wanted to show that even in compressed audio files, it is still possible to get good results.
Lastly, here is a FLAC file 16 bit at 96kHz, notice a large amount of headroom that really serves no purpose to end listeners.
Looking at the above, you can see how different files differ in what they contain. The MP3 files that are 320kbps quality with a cutoff at 16k is nothing more than an upsampled MP3… there is no need to utilize a full 320kbps MP3 when only say a 192kbps is needed to store the truncated data… I am speaking generally.
I do not have a studio of sorts, I only do things at a DJ level, things like mixes, mashups, etc, things where some headroom is needed to maintain quality. For this, I find that 16 bit at 48kHz is perfect. Anything over 48kHz I find to be just waste as the benefits it offers do not get used by me, so paying to store the larger files provides no payoff.
I prefer, almost require, that any compressed audio files that I actually keep do not have a lowpass filter applied, soft or hard. The human ear is stated to hear 20-20k, although realistically (and as seen with MP3s), anything above 16kHz listened to casually is not likely to be noticed. I find that listening relaxing with headphones or in my stereo room with all else quiet, I can tell a difference easily. Depending on your style of music, there are many things you can tell, like the inherent tonal difference between an MP3 vs a M4A. I am not so sure that I can actually hear the frequencies up to the 22kHz ranges, it is possible I only hear the resulting artifacts.
Sorry for the long post, this is not a mastering or sound engineering thread, but I wanted to address your very valid question with some detail.
EDIT: I wanted to add as I do not want to assume… the values like 44.1, 48, 92 kHz is the sample rate. So when it is said that something is upsampled, that basically means that a file originating from a low sample rate file has been converted to a higher sample rate file, doing nothing but adding wasted space. So if you have a 44.1 file and convert it to a 48 or larger, that is only wasted space with no gains. Also if you have a 192 MP3 and you convert it to a 320 MP3, there is no gain there, it just takes up more space.
9 Likes
I had to look for an example, but here is a beautiful hi resolution file, notice the recorded sound exceeds the 22kHz mark. That is also a sign that you have a “real” file.
4 Likes
I don’t think so. According to their terms of service, it’s generally offered worldwide with partial restriction “… due to license agreements and territory restrictions some Digital Content are not available. … The purchasing button in the shop will be disabled and not be displayed.”
TBH I don’t know if only half of the offers are available if you live in the wrong territory … 
I would therefore not recommend streaming outside of the EU.
Thanks for your presentation! 
Until now I have not analysed my hi-res downloads …and I don’t really hear the difference even with excellent speakers. And mp3 upscaling will probably be more often an issue with “dubious sources”, right?
1 Like
While the answer is yes, it still exists on legit services, both on older music as well as new. There is a large number of reasons why this exists, and not all of it involves an intent to deceive. I am happy to share what I know, but that is almost a different topic. I will say here that I do not see this as often as it once was, but it still exists without question. One huge factor is the original recording. It can never by improved in that sense. Assuming digital if I record and save something at a 44.1 sample rate, that means I have have a maximum frequency of 22.05kHz, or just simply 22kHz. The math is simply sample rate divided by 2.
With hi res audio files, it can be hard and often impossible to hear a difference. One thing to always remember is the source of the audio is what matters. If a 16 bit file comes from a different source than a 24 bit file, there could well be a difference. Example, I can make a 16 but FLAC from a CD, but I cannot do the same for a 24 but FLAC. The 24 bit FLAC should require me to go further into the original recordings. This can cause audible differences due to mastering. Same as with the sample rate, a CD is 44.1, so a digital file of 48 or above (48, 88, 92, etc) will require a different source further into the original recordings.
2 Likes
This was and still is a difficult fact to grasp. While it does make sense, there is so much that gets lost in this. I do not believe that a separate recording needs creating here, but there should be an additional level. A level between the recording and the release that allows for the specification of mastering and such.
In digital is is easy to see the reasons… we have the difference between a 128 MP3 and a CD, or FLAC file derived from a CD. However, even in the past, we had differences between cassette types. The lower quality cassette tapes had a lesser range than a higher quality tape. Today, we can listen to a vinyl and compare it to a 24 bit FLAC and hear a difference there. The tonal aspects are often very different, where the vinyl provides a smoother and realistic sound than a digital file can. While the medium plays a large part in this, so does the mastering. I cannot master a recording for a CD the same as for a vinyl. The same is true for modern iTunes vs CD, the mastering is different, thus “Mastered for iTunes”. It is an aspect that is often misunderstood… Mastered for iTunes often gets a separate release when it is nothing but a different mastering accounting for the additional capabilities of the digital file vs the CD, which does not actually get a separate release.
We got rid of the mastered for iTunes being separate release a few years ago actually. I don’t think anyone is keeping those separate that I’ve seen. So, if you still run across them, merge them. I do. And haven’t been voted down on one in years. I still keep the hi-res separate, but I’d like to see attributes on links so we can stop keeping them separate, as stated before. Thanks for the comparison on the sample rates. I never knew that some “hi-res” releases are actually blown up from lower rates sometimes.
2 Likes
Wow, I did not know this changed. While I agree there is a notable difference, in the current MB schema, there is not really a place for it.
I agree on the references, even as far as defining a reference as a 16-44 FLAC vs a 24-44 FLAC and so on… keeping it all on the same release.
Only if the catalog number, barcode, and mastering engineer are the same, I hope.
Because here’s an example where the release identifiers separate them:
I like the sound of that… however, how do you identify the mastering engineer on an iTunes release? I find it difficult to identify a lot of the behind the scenes artists on digital releases.
Yeah, of course. Only if it is identical to Spotify/Deezer or other digital releases in all respects except for being Mastered for iTunes. The reason is it’s the same mastering actually sent to the different services. It’s just that it was specifically mastered to meet the Mastered for iTunes (now Apple Digital Masters) criteria they want to have.
GitHub - ToadKing/apple-music-barcode-isrc for barcode & audio quality
www.jaxsta.com has info on mastering engineers, etc on many releases. It’s basically the same data you also find on Tidal.
2 Likes