Skip to main content

Topic: 320 kps MP3 or --quality 7 --xlevel MPC ? (Read 14412 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • Diam0nd
  • [*]
320 kps MP3 or --quality 7 --xlevel MPC ?
Hi, PEOPLE. I'm new in MPC & I need some help. The thing is that I RIP a lot of CD's, usually with LAME bitrate 320. 320 BECAUSE I'm after QUALITY. The high, the better. Is it true that MPC is better then MP3? Much better? I mean is it worth it RIP'ping with MPC?

Another 1  Will I get higher quality using -quality 10 --xlevel instead of -quality 7 --xlevel ?

Thanks a lot FOR answers

P.$. Are you happy now, Mr. Jay?
  • Last Edit: 04 November, 2003, 04:39:00 PM by Diam0nd
TerraTec DMX 6fire 24/96 S0UNDC@RD
Technics DJ1210 HE@DPH0NE$
Creative Zen 20GB MP3 PL@YER

  • novocane
  • [*]
320 kps MP3 or --quality 7 --xlevel MPC ?
Reply #1
MPC is better than mp3 at high bitrates . using that setting -q7 you will get transparent quality in almost all music you want to encode , I don´t say at 100% because nothing is 100% secure  . also you will need less disk space using mpc at -q7 than using mp3@320 kb/s

  • sthayashi
  • [*][*][*][*]
320 kps MP3 or --quality 7 --xlevel MPC ?
Reply #2
You would get higher quality by using either Monkey Audio or FLAC.  Alternatively, you'll also get impressively high quality by using WavPack Hybrid or OptimFrog DualStream

MPC --quality 10 --xlevel is the highest quality level there is.  But to give you a hint, MPC --quality 7 is also  MPC --insane.
MPC --quality 8 is also MPC --braindead.

They chose those names for a reason.

  • Jan S.
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
320 kps MP3 or --quality 7 --xlevel MPC ?
Reply #3
Diam0nd:

Quote
10. All posts must be in english

A non-English post is anti-social as it excludes a large section of the forum members from the ongoing discussion. Do not use so called elite or "1337" speak as it makes your post harder to read and unreadable for some forum members. Do not use uncommen abbreviations as it can make it impossible for some forum members to understand what you wrote.

Explanation: Such posts degrade the quality of the forum since many other users can't understand their content and could therefore be considered SPAM.


Edit: TOS #10 discussion split here.
  • Last Edit: 04 November, 2003, 04:47:57 PM by zZzZzZz

  • p0wder
  • [*][*][*][*]
320 kps MP3 or --quality 7 --xlevel MPC ?
Reply #4
If quality is what you're after, then use Musepack.  You'll start getting diminishing returns after --standard.

  • Pike84
  • [*][*][*]
320 kps MP3 or --quality 7 --xlevel MPC ?
Reply #5
Just try mpc Q5 and if you can't tell it from the original, stick with that one. Somehow I'm guessing though, that your case is more of a psychological sort, so perhaps I should suggest lossless for you instead ?
  • Last Edit: 05 November, 2003, 02:04:26 PM by Pike84
XMPlay rocks! www.un4seen.com

  • phong
  • [*][*][*][*]
320 kps MP3 or --quality 7 --xlevel MPC ?
Reply #6
I'll be so bold as to say mpc --standard will generally beat lame --preset insane.  Just take a look at the known problem samples for those settings, both the number of problem samples as well as the severity.
I am *expanding!*  It is so much *squishy* to *smell* you!  *Campers* are the best!  I have *anticipation* and then what?  Better parties in *the middle* for sure.
http://www.phong.org/

  • user
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
320 kps MP3 or --quality 7 --xlevel MPC ?
Reply #7
320 kps MP3 or --quality 7 --xlevel MPC ?








simple answer:

mpc @ q7 (about 220 kbit) offers better sound quality than mp3@320, near to perfect, archive quality, great bitrate saver compared to lossless = 600 - 900 kbit/s  depends on music,( loud or silent, classic or other),
mp3 @ 320 needs way more space, and has less quality than mpc at q7.
  • Last Edit: 12 November, 2003, 04:23:02 AM by user
www.High-Quality.ch.vu -- High Quality Audio Archiving Tutorials

  • lucpes
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
320 kps MP3 or --quality 7 --xlevel MPC ?
Reply #8
mpc --insane (quality 7) will be more than enough for 99.9999% of the music out there. Anything above that is a waste of space.

Even 7 is overkill, however there were a couple of samples that could be ABX'ed at q5 & q6 but not at q7.

  • dev0
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer
320 kps MP3 or --quality 7 --xlevel MPC ?
Reply #9
I dare to say that even --quality 5 will be higher quality than 320kbps MP3 (LAME) in most (all?) cases at about half the size. --quality 7 is for the paranoid like me.

dev0
"To understand me, you'll have to swallow a world." Or maybe your words.

  • nite
  • [*][*]
320 kps MP3 or --quality 7 --xlevel MPC ?
Reply #10
Some may suggest that I waste HD space needlessly, or call me paranoid - but I encode using Q10. 

Recently I lost a 1500 song library encoded in Q7.  After replacing my dead drive with 120GB, I began the lengthy task of encoding all over again.  With so much extra HD space available, why not go with the Q8 Braindead setting.  Everything sounded great, untill I decided to experiment with the EAC software.  By mistake entered a value of Q10 (I thought this was braindead).  After realizing the error I decided to compare a few music samples.  I can't tell you why my ears are sensitive enough to pick up transient information but maybe its more audible in Q10. - I really can hear the difference even at these bitrates.

My suggestion to you is - ABX some samples for yourself.  I prefer to listen to mostly jazz and classical acoustic recordings.  I find instumentation and vocals contained in well produced jazz (without overproduction) will yield quality which is more decernable at these quality levels. 

If you can hear the difference yourself, then I would say that there is no shame in being a fortunate minority.

Happy encoding in Quality 10 - MPC still rules the pack!

  • westgroveg
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
320 kps MP3 or --quality 7 --xlevel MPC ?
Reply #11
Diam0nd, it’s very rare to find artifacts on 256kbps mp3’s & even you can hear differences believe me they are very slight. 320kbps using LAME, just try the worst problem samples (worst case scenarios which are usually less than a second & rare) you will be lucky to hear any difference.

If you have good hearing & quality equipment you may even find MPC has a very slight HF & LF boost too (just a personal opinion) but what is for sure, no lossy is perfect.

I would use mp3 because of compatibility, that & it’s size is the lure of lossy for me.

  • Pio2001
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Global Moderator
320 kps MP3 or --quality 7 --xlevel MPC ?
Reply #12
Guys, this thread is more than 9 monthes old !

  • kjoonlee
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
320 kps MP3 or --quality 7 --xlevel MPC ?
Reply #13
I somehow find it odd that nobody has mentioned ABXing in this thread for "9 months."

If you can't hear a difference and have to ask others, what's the point in asking which is better?
  • Last Edit: 21 August, 2004, 09:13:25 PM by kjoonlee

  • westgroveg
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
320 kps MP3 or --quality 7 --xlevel MPC ?
Reply #14
Quote
I somehow find it odd that nobody has mentioned ABXing in this thread for "9 months."

If you can't hear a difference and have to ask others, what's the point in asking which is better?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=236139"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Both nite & I mentioned ABX, try problem samples.

Quote
Guys, this thread is more than 9 monthes old !

lol, I just saw it pop up in the portal.

  • kjoonlee
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
320 kps MP3 or --quality 7 --xlevel MPC ?
Reply #15
Quote
Quote
I somehow find it odd that nobody has mentioned ABXing in this thread for "9 months."

If you can't hear a difference and have to ask others, what's the point in asking which is better?[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=236139"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Both nite & I mentioned ABX, try problem samples.[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=236142"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It was only mentioned today.

  • liekloo
  • [*][*][*][*]
320 kps MP3 or --quality 7 --xlevel MPC ?
Reply #16
Quote
Guys, this thread is more than 9 monthes old !
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=236123"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

haha! 
"E S S E N T I A L" Guide for E A C :

http://users.fulladsl.be/spb2267/