Lossy or lossless

Where is that mp3 from & what was the file you took it from?
Was it an mp3 that you took it from?
For the others, you need to really consider the source media.
Cassettes (see the Brum 89 image) typically wouldn't have a range much over 15-16kHz & the players/ recorders wouldn't be much better.
Minidiscs (see Zillo image) also are subject to limitations in frequency range & even use their own compression method (ATRAC).
For FM stuff (see JAMC image) all FM broadcasts are compressed anyway. Add to that the limitations of most home cassette decks & you'll see a response curve that will miss quite a lot of top end.
It doesn't help when using noise reduction gizmos either (dolby B/C etc.)
If you're doing a tape transfer, you really want a higher end deck, but if the tape was recorded on an average deck to start with, you won't really gain anything really.

Don't even start me on digital radio broadcasts.   all lossy as hell. So much for improved quality eh?
& anyone who claims they sourced from a digital FM broadcast, they are just as lossy. The FM transmitter is used, but the digital signal has a lot of noise removed. Guess how? Yep. They strip those frequencies out

If you really want to be able to tell the difference, then play a lossless file & then play the same track as a lossy file.
The lossless one will sound a fraction slower (an aural illusion) but a lot more detailed. It's like putting on a pair of glasses to read something.
But then again. If you're using low end equipment, you won't notice any difference.

You need to look at the wave form too to see if it's "had a haircut".

Oki doki


The mp3 has had the dynamic range compressed. You can clearly see where the wave form looks like it's been cut off suddenly.
& here's an example of extreme compression