Mp3 files will convert / decode exactly the same no matter what player you use.

This can be easily shown in the two files you posted; they have the exact same spectrograms:

 

Sound to picture and back to sound... Now I´ve "seen" or "heard" everything
Now that´s some thick snake oil... What´s next, put it in DNA, CRISPR it, then back to sound

 

1. Yes, you are quite right. Good Music can conjure up quite a lot of of what you mention.
2. In psychology it's simply called synesthesia, and in the field of IT WAVs are just a sort of 1D bitmaps.

 

Not the same in the least. Different contrast and sharper spectogram peaks, the different gamma, etc. show differences in dynamic and transient response, differences is details, etc. Very slight differences in spectogram correspond to much bigger differences in perceived output.You should show these to a radiologist if you want a confirmation.
But you picture is not big enough and has insufficient resolution to see it quite convincing.
Mp3 files will not convert / decode exactly the same no matter what player you use.
For instance, you have MAD, Otachan's in_mpg123,
Frauenhofer, in_FF SoX 2a (and other) mp3 decoders for Winamp, which all sound a bit different. The same is true with Apollo mp3 decoder, etc. It's a well established fact, discussed extensively among experts in due time over decades.
And the issue in this thread is 'what you hear' is better.

 

Last edited: Feb 13, 2020

that sounds like the age old glitch trick.
its weird how the edits you make to the picture version of your audio actually sound how you would expect them to, and vice versa.
i played with ideas for weeks without getting bored

 

I must admit I did not understand the meaning of your post. Could you express your opinion in a more straightforward way, please? English is not my native, you know...
- old glitch trick...!?
- how the edits you make to the picture version of your audio actually sound how you would expect them to...!?

 

you can convert your file to RAW data using audacity.
then you can import the RAW data into an image editor (i think i would have used photoshop).
from there you can edit the image and save it, then import the new RAW data file back into audacity and convert it back to WAV.

the audio ends up being exactly the same but with weird (image) edits applied. because you are dealing with raw data it converts back to audio perfectly.

the only thing you do need to watch out for is the headers. there are parts of the data that you cant change or it will destroy the header so you cant reimport it as audio. that part was always a strip at the top of an image for me. you can experiment to figure out where that strip is and just leave it untouched by the image editor.

the audio and the image are linked in predictable ways. e.g. if you copy and paste part of the image to make it repeat it ends up sounding like a delay, where the audio is repeated. and if you blur it, it has a diffusion effect.

 

First, one can convert audio into graphs (what any sound editor actually does). Most issues both in audio and graphics are the same - sharpness, contrast, depth (stereo), detail, noise, artifacts, graininess, intensity (loudness/gain), timbre, gamma, dithering, interpolation, saturation, crop, depixelate, distort, change levels (EQ), different filtering, retouch (remaster), etc.
The only possible problem might be converting between the two, but in theory, it is not impossible.

 

Did you actually try all of this?
In my previous post I guessed that was the thing the author of BugHead Emperor player actually did, but everybody on this forum either denies the mere possibility of it, or says it is 'very improbable'.
Anyway I think your post is great.

 

yea ive done it hundreds of times. last time i did it was about 3years + ago though, so my memory of the specifics is quite rusty.

im not saying that sharpening an image will improve audio quality though, i find that highly unlikely too. it is a destructive process and i think the only possible outcome would be degraded audio in some way, even if it sounds "better" to certain people (i would assume earbud users).

the process itself though is 100% factual.
i will try to put together a tutorial and get it up here (once i figure out how i did it before). i havent got photoshop or audacity installed so i will get those on my computer first. i think i should be able to figure it out pretty fast after that.
its a fun and interesting process that can create some awesome and very unique sounds, so people here might benefit from it.
i will also demonstrate how you can turn any file into an audio file. although they are harsh and only good occasionally for glitch sounds really.
i will try to hurry

 

There is a much better picture sharpening software than Photoshop, called Topaz AI, it works extremely well:
https://topazlabs.com/ai-bundle/
There are cracked versions of it on different warez sites.

 

maybe i will try sharpening too, just to hear how it sounds. i seriously doubt it will improve the audio though.
in my opinion, any destructive process is bad for audio. if the artist intends the audio to sound a certain way then that is how it should be replicated. the only good thing you can do is adjust for certain playback conditions, which is different for every user.

 

Are we talking about soundquality here? I use a DTS wav file to check the player. It my amp decodes that, the player does not alter the bits. If i hear noise, the player is crap. I use Winamp.

 

Isn't any DSP destructive? Especially remastering... so popular and welcome by audiophiles. And some artist had a bad equipment at the time, and/or a bad engineering crew, or bads final mastering,or no final mastering at all. Or just did not know it could be done better?

 

Last edited: Feb 13, 2020

One can see audio waves:

https://www.reddit.com/r/nextfuckinglevel/comments/f2n9dj/tunnel_shockwave_posted_again_with_sound/

 

Last edited: Feb 13, 2020

It's true that RAW is mostly used with images but I'm pretty sure it means not-compressed-or-processed-at-all. In this case. Wav, aif and so on. Oh, and probably what @tun said, even without headers.
Even if it uses spline technology is very different to use it in an image vs a sound.

I'm a tech lover but not that much, seems too much for me.
Anyway, doesn't hurt if compliments keep coming...

 

But you also speak Japanese, I presume...

 

Even if it works it´s called enchantment, it´s definetely not original anymore, pure wav or DSD with proper setup in perfect enviroment is real, these are just someones enchantments and does not fit for everyone´s ears. Still can´t believe this happening in year 2020. Sharpness, contrast, saturation, bass, treble or what ever, you´re only making it to fit your ears, not everyones else, also bringing A.I into this

 

Enhancement, you are right. It is quite necessary since PCM & DSD formats, audio recording and producing, as well as reproducing, still have a lot of shortcomings, flaws and weaknesses (and they are all 'real'). [By the way, just look what wonder silicone does to enhance girls' looks, it surely will convince you unreal is better than real, I suppose]
So, the author of BugHead player possibly just overcame some of the PCM shortcomings...
AI you have in some audio software already, like Sonible SmartEQ [works very well], and in graphic processing it may increase the resolution up to 7x compared to classic non-AI methods.
The whole modern technology is based in everyday enhancements, anyway, and it will bring us to the Mars soon where you can listen to the unproduced music of spheres.

 

Last edited: Feb 13, 2020

But A.I is what you make thru machine learning and algorithms, these are someone elses guidelines and definetely doesn´t fit for everyone, what suits you, doesn´t mean it´s for everyone else.. I´m not dissing you by any mean, but throwing guidelines to others, what to and how to listen is still far away truth. Human is still too complicated to be measured by computers and they´re programs