Juno selling reencodes as flac/wav....

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Album Reviews / New Releases Discussion
-- Juno selling reencodes as flac/wav....

Posted by Matt_Moor on Dec-25-2010 14:46:

Juno selling reencodes as flac/wav....

I bought a number of tracks off Juno recently and I have started to use auCDtect to check if they are genuine wav files or not.

Now some were genuine but some were not according to the software. It could be the case of-course the label re-encoded themselves from a 320 mp3, possibly the original recordings didn't have any frequency above 16Khz also.

When you look at the spectrograms of the fakes you can clearly see some go flat at around 16Khz.

Anyone else noticed this?

Posted by montana on Dec-25-2010 22:40:

yeah, there is several labels that do this, a guy on another forum who is on a number of promo pools has noticed that alot of releases start as mp3 source, and that this practice has been done for a long time now. there have been some cdsingles and releases that were pressed from mp3s and that's not even after beatport and digital promo pools came about.

it's bullshit but to be honest, if you are on the know that this or that label uses mp3 source as master, then don't buy their waves or flacs.

Posted by Adam420 on Dec-25-2010 23:10:

Maybe we can get a list of said labels going...

Posted by Matt_Moor on Dec-25-2010 23:21:

quote:
Originally posted by montana
yeah, there is several labels that do this, a guy on another forum who is on a number of promo pools has noticed that alot of releases start as mp3 source, and that this practice has been done for a long time now. there have been some cdsingles and releases that were pressed from mp3s and that's not even after beatport and digital promo pools came about.

it's bullshit but to be honest, if you are on the know that this or that label uses mp3 source as master, then don't buy their waves or flacs.

That is a disgrace! Thanks for the info mate I wont be buying anymore Lost Language that is for sure.

Cannot believe how cheeky this practice is, charging people extra money for something that is no better than a 320 MP3. I feel so pissed about this.

For the record the release I bought were:

Origin - Wide Eyed Angel
Natious - Amber
Arenok - Free Yourself
Benz & Md - Redline
Benz & Md - Turning The Curves
Perry O'Neil - Bass Society
Kyo & Gil - Ultima

Posted by Chimney on Dec-26-2010 00:06:

I'll check some of my Juno purchases.

Posted by basilisk on Dec-27-2010 00:18:

Expose them!

Be careful though, some engineers remove high frequencies from the mix during mastering... I think the distinguishing feature is usually a hard vs soft cut-off. Lossy media looks lossy in the spectral analyzer.

Posted by montana on Dec-29-2010 11:35:

yeah, if you think that wave doesn't sound like a wave, check it with a spectrum analyzer or better yet, load the song in cooledit/auditions and check it in spectral view. or just listen to it

Posted by Chimney on Dec-30-2010 19:05:

The FLAC version of Seth Troxler & Art Department - Vampire Nightclub. Notice the frequency cut at 14.000

Typical pre LAME 3.97 mp3 encoding.

Maybe I should write them a mail.

Posted by Kismet7 on Dec-31-2010 10:22:

what do you see though? i see velvety curtains

Posted by Chimney on Dec-31-2010 12:31:

quote:
Originally posted by Kismet7
what do you see though? i see velvety curtains

Look at about 13800/14000, you can see it cuts, then the frequency continues. This is close to how 320 CBR with LAME 3,97 and 3,98 (was wrong about the "pre" in the previous post) is supposed to look, but with cut at 16.000 instead. This is what a clear, clean 100% FLAC file looks like:

Posted by ali92 on Mar-20-2011 18:43:

It looks like I am now a victim of this. I scanned all my Juno purchases & it seems the latest one I bought, Illitheas - 2010-11-26 - Perfect Day, has a hard cut-off at around 19.5 KHz.

I have shied away for a while from buying 'digital' music for fear of this and from what you on here are saying, it looks like there is no solution to the problem if even pressed CDs are ultimately having inferior audio.

Will this trend continue, with the future basically being lossy only, with no options for people with good enough ears & equipment?

Posted by Guest on Mar-20-2011 21:00:

vinyl

Posted by Tangil on Mar-21-2011 01:22:

this is a disgrace

Posted by Glaniskanis on Mar-21-2011 08:52:

@Chimney it could also be the shitty quality in which the tune was recorded or samples that were used, as to why it cuts lower than 19k. But 13k-14k is just crazy and looks faulty to say the least.

Good thread btw This is also why I'm not really saving lots of lossless unless I know where they're from.