Is MPC better than mp3?
Reply #27 – 2006-04-02 23:38:13
Well, ok. Although recommended and best aren't the same. [a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=378303"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] True, but recommendation (at least here) are based on the quality criterion (i.e. we're recommending x over y because x is clearly the best). --alt-preset were recommended over --r3mix (ultra-popular) only because it was better. LAME was recommended over Fhg, Blade, Xing for the same reason. The entire forum is haunted by the same question: what's the best setting? what's the best encoder? what's the best format? The purpose of TOS#8 is precisely a safeguard against trolling or complete anarchy due to the subjective argument. It's because ABX tests are possible and reliable that people could perfectly: - claim that x is better than y - help to improve any encoder by a proper and rational feedback - ask to other people for trustable advices. ABX tests are apparently much harder to set on video (lack of software?) and without such proper methodology calls for advice could quickly turn into massive trolling and bashfest. Hence Doom's TOS#12 I suppose.There's helluva difference between 'I really wanna try this codec and wanna know what the good settings for this particular purpose would be' and 'What's the best codec of them all' soon falling down to 'I heard yer prefered codec is better/bigger/longer than mine, well, that's not true...', the latter is like invitation to the bashing/flamewars/fanboyism/hurt feelings/namescalling and what not. True, but again this board has a protection against this risk. And it worked pretty well.So if you're into streaming over ISDN or encoding audio for DVD backup, you probably exclude certain codecs from the consideration, and vice versa. That's obvious. But in the present case, someone was very precise: LAME --preset extreme or Musepack? He didn't asked for a general position about MP3 vs MPC.In another words I can't quite remember something starting like this and leading to something constructive. As I said, MPC "success" is based on similar threads... A lot of people are (or were) convinced that MPC --insane or --braindead is something necessary. No need to be a genius to understand that most of these people could safely use --standard as well or even MP3 at 130 kbps to get the same perceptual quality. Just take a look on the few results sent on various listening tests or read Seed's complaints about the total lack of feedback of the MPC audiophile community The existence of a small MPC community is certainly not based on personal and double-blind experience of its superiority at 180 kbps, but rather on blind-trust and self-persuasion of most users. If I'm wrong, I wonder where are located all these testers. Not on HA for sure