Skip to main content

Topic: mpc vs lossless (Read 10938 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • o770
  • [*][*]
mpc vs lossless
How does the api mp3 compare when the sources are lossless and q5 mpc? Which resulting mp3 has better audio quality? Thanks.

  • krmathis
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
mpc vs lossless
Reply #1
Encoding from a lossless source will always give you better audio quality than encoding from a lossy source. No questions asked!
  • Last Edit: 16 July, 2005, 10:39:00 AM by krmathis

  • o770
  • [*][*]
mpc vs lossless
Reply #2
It seems to me that the majority of you beleive that any better profile than aps is overkill for portables. If I trust that, am i right if I go with api for better quality since I'm transcoding from lossy (mpc q5)?
I don't know how to run a proper comparison so I'm asking: which one do you beleive has better audio quality: lossless to aps mp3 or mpc q5 to api mp3?

mpc vs lossless
Reply #3
I transcode from mpc to --preset medium for use in my car.  Very, very infrequently do I have a problem with this.
"You can fight without ever winning, but never win without a fight."  Neil Peart  'Resist'

  • sTisTi
  • [*][*][*][*]
mpc vs lossless
Reply #4
Quote
It seems to me that the majority of you beleive that any better profile than aps is overkill for portables. If I trust that, am i right if I go with api for better quality since I'm transcoding from lossy (mpc q5)?
I don't know how to run a proper comparison so I'm asking: which one do you beleive has better audio quality: lossless to aps mp3 or mpc q5 to api mp3?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=313862"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'd prefer lossless => APS any day... mpc q5 to api is an ugly solution: you end up with a bloated, transcoded MP3.
Proverb for Paranoids: "If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers."
-T. Pynchon (Gravity's Rainbow)

  • o770
  • [*][*]
mpc vs lossless
Reply #5
The problem is that all the sources are mpc q5-8. And because I've read many of you saying that mpc was a good source to transcode from I wanted to know how that was compared to lossless and how much of an increase in sound quality would I get from aps to api.
  • Last Edit: 16 July, 2005, 01:00:50 PM by o770

  • sTisTi
  • [*][*][*][*]
mpc vs lossless
Reply #6
Quote
The problem is that all the sources are mpc q5-8. And because I've read many of you saying that mpc was a good source to transcode from I wanted to know how that was compared to lossless and how much of an increase in sound quality would I get from aps to api.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=313905"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

If you absolutely have to transcode, I'd use --alt-preset extreme -Y
This gives the best quality obtainable with VBR and additionally saves bits with -Y by mostly cutting off >16 kHz content, which is irrelevant anyway with a compromised transcoding scenario IMO.
Proverb for Paranoids: "If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers."
-T. Pynchon (Gravity's Rainbow)

  • Zurman
  • [*][*][*]
mpc vs lossless
Reply #7
Quote
The problem is that all the sources are mpc q5-8. And because I've read many of you saying that mpc was a good source to transcode from I wanted to know how that was compared to lossless and how much of an increase in sound quality would I get from aps to api.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=313905"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Guruboolez had done a listening test about transcoding, maybe you could have a look at it

Anyway I think you spend too much time wondering which solution would be better and not enough time listening music  (As both solutions would be transparent for most people on most systems)

  • o770
  • [*][*]
mpc vs lossless
Reply #8
You may just ignore me if this I'm saying makes no sense. I could try it out though but your answer always have valuable comments that my results lack. If I encode from lossless to mpc q7 and re-encode this last file to mpc q7, how much of a loss is there to it in comparsion with the first file? If that isn't possible, how much loss WOULD this last file get? Will the codec eliminate data by the same amount again?

And how much quality am I getting going from aps to api if the source is mpc q5?

  • Lyx
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
mpc vs lossless
Reply #9
As someone else already said: in a noisy environment (noisy in this case does not mean that it has to be loud) API is overkill.

So, it is very probable that you will gain nothing in practice. One exception may be if your tracks have gapless trackchanges: transcoding does affect those much more than the rest of the music itself. Then again: it is very probably that your portable/car hardware-player does not even support true gapless-playback (or provices pseudo-gapless playback by crossfading) - so, even in this case you will probably gain nothing by going to API.
  • Last Edit: 16 July, 2005, 05:14:03 PM by Lyx
I am arrogant and I can afford it because I deliver.

mpc vs lossless
Reply #10
Similar to what someone else already mentioned...

I transcoded a whole bunch of albums from MPC q6 to APS for use in my car, and I CAN NOT notice a difference in quality.  I doubt most people, if anyone, would be able to.
"The way we see our world is better than yours."

  • moozooh
  • [*][*][*][*]
mpc vs lossless
Reply #11
Quote
How does the api mp3 compare when the sources are lossless and q5 mpc? Which resulting mp3 has better audio quality? Thanks.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=313853"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Though lossless-sourced file will be of 100% better quality, 99% that you won't notice.

Quote
If I encode from lossless to mpc q7 and re-encode this last file to mpc q7, how much of a loss is there to it in comparsion with the first file?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=313917"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Musepack has very good psymodel… So good it will just strip a few kilobytes off already encoded q7 file.  And again, 99% that you won't notice, but I don't recommend doing this stuff.

Quote
And how much quality am I getting going from aps to api if the source is mpc q5?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=313917"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Almost nothing. But the bitrate bloat is going to be much more noticeable.

Quote
As someone else already said: in a noisy environment (noisy in this case does not mean that it has to be loud) API is overkill.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=313934"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

API is overkill anyway, not only in noisy environment. I think the only purpose left for using it is testing.
  • Last Edit: 16 July, 2005, 08:13:19 PM by Mo0zOoH
Infrasonic Quartet + Sennheiser HD650 + Microlab Solo 2 mk3. 

  • shadowking
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
mpc vs lossless
Reply #12
Quote
As someone else already said: in a noisy environment (noisy in this case does not mean that it has to be loud) API is overkill.

So, it is very probable that you will gain nothing in practice. One exception may be if your tracks have gapless trackchanges: transcoding does affect those much more than the rest of the music itself. Then again: it is very probably that your portable/car hardware-player does not even support true gapless-playback (or provices pseudo-gapless playback by crossfading) - so, even in this case you will probably gain nothing by going to API.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=313934"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]



Interesting.. I've transcoded hundreds of tracks from wavpack lossy and they are perfectly gapless in foobar. How did you find faults?
wavpack -b4x4s1c

  • user
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
mpc vs lossless
Reply #13
api = 320 kbit/s made from MPC q5 ca. 170-180 kbit/s iirc ==>>  bloating sizes, no win, as as well mp3 at 320 k has still some flaws, and mpc at q5 isn't perfect either. So, going from mpc q5 to mp3 320k is doubled size + doubled artefacts.

As the goal is mp3 for portable, like listening during running, or in car, train etc., aps = 190 k is already enough quality. For portable usage me is satisfied with mp3 at medium bitrates, or something like preset 133 to go close to 128k.
My listening behaviour for really diving into music is totally different, there my listening needs at least mp3 at 320k, MPC at q7-q8, Lossless, speakers positioned at exact places, every cm counts.
www.High-Quality.ch.vu -- High Quality Audio Archiving Tutorials

  • Lyx
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
mpc vs lossless
Reply #14
Quote
Interesting.. I've transcoded hundreds of tracks from wavpack lossy and they are perfectly gapless in foobar. How did you find faults?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=314020"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That may be because wavpack lossy is one of the best sources to transcode *from*. It becomes more dangerous when transcoding from vorbis, MPC or even MP3. It may also have to do with the fact, that my gapless albums tend to be very "floaty" (ambient, etc.) and therefore even the slightest flaws become very audible.
  • Last Edit: 18 July, 2005, 09:50:38 AM by Lyx
I am arrogant and I can afford it because I deliver.

  • MugFunky
  • [*][*][*][*]
mpc vs lossless
Reply #15
i've not done any formal ABX'ing for MPC to MP3 (actually, i seem to remember doing a small one and getting 8/8 comparing transcoded to the original CD, but being unable to tell the transcode from the MPC), but for what it's worth the bitrates always come out a bit lower for MPC->aps compared to CD->aps (10-20kbps average).