Wrong result for a WAV file.

[Tacis]

WAV file shown as 128 kbps. How can I report wrong result?

[Fake No Funk]

Maybe it IS 128 kbps?
Could you post the spectrum?

[Tacis]

https://imgur.com/a/RYI7BHv

https://imgur.com/a/YDNinRx

[Fake No Funk]

These spectrums indicate that the file was upscaled from one hires format to another hires format
It does not matter if it's wav or not, even the source file on a CD might have been upscaled/preprocessed.

This very strict testing was included (when the aggressive analysis mode is activated) because when converting files e.g. from MPEG to HE-AAC, the quality really gets bad, even though the spectrum looks good (at a first glance).

I doubt that the file is really a lossless wav.

[Tacis]

OK, I cannot make 100% sure it's lossless (though downloaded from Beatport). But it's definitely not 128 kbps.

This is what it looks like in 128 kbps:

https://imgur.com/a/c6JQapK

https://imgur.com/a/KJ1ftHZ

You say there's some magic that can upscale it to those other spectrums?

[Fake No Funk]

Well, the value "128" in this case is more in the meaning of "this file is suspicious".
Because: Which value should I report if a hires file is transcoded to another hires file - it still looks like hires, it still has a high bitrate... So these 128 kbps should indicate "WAIT this looks strange".

Maybe it still sounds good, this cannot be determined by analyzing the spectrum file.
You'd have to listen carefully with good equipment...

This (very) aggressive analysis was requested by audiophile people that insist they can hear the difference.

[Tacis]

Considering the fact that it's more like a "could be not lossless", maybe put "320 kbps", when it's higher in file? That will indicate it's possibly not lossless, but won't be lowering the actual bitrate. Also consider another tag for this, like you have this "CORRUPTED" tag, so it will be up to audiophile people to re-listen.

[Tacis]

So I went further and bought mp3 from Beatport. :) App said it's 320 kbps while WAV is 128 kbps. :)

WAV again:

https://imgur.com/a/S59naNF

mp3:

https://imgur.com/a/jW4pQsD

So mp3 is better than WAV? :)

[Fake No Funk]

No, mp3 is not better than wav.
But the wav file claims: "I'm lossless up to 22.1 kHz" - the spectrum shows something different.

The detected "cutoff frequency" in this case is the point at where the spectrum gets questionable.
This strict check is only done for files claiming to be hires > 22 kHz
Mp3 files are lossy by design, therefore this check does not make sense here..

As said, if you feel these songs are OK, you can always turn off the aggressive analysis mode. Or mark them as OK manually. However, it makes sense to doublecheck these files neverthelesse!

I'd really like to know if experts could spot a difference between your wav and mp3 when A/B testing.

[Tacis]

Understood. Again, I would like to make a feature request that "128 kbps" won't be a marker, but an actual result of analysis.

As for the experts, I can share samples, check your email.