Skip to main content

Topic: MPC vs VORBIS vs MP3 vs AAC at 180 kbps (Read 284821 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • Yaztromo
  • [*][*][*]
MPC vs VORBIS vs MP3 vs AAC at 180 kbps
Reply #75
I will test with beta4 in the next couple of days.

  • alter4
  • [*][*][*]
MPC vs VORBIS vs MP3 vs AAC at 180 kbps
Reply #76



the first click in castanets2, no comment!
  • Last Edit: 08 September, 2005, 04:53:28 AM by alter4

  • Aoyumi
  • [*][*][*]
MPC vs VORBIS vs MP3 vs AAC at 180 kbps
Reply #77
Quote
the first click in castanets2, no comment!


Generally it is not so meaningful to take up the graph of a specific portion.
It may become the origin which causes misapprehension.
Here is an interesting example.

1.1.1 has for me pre-echo irritated rather than beta4.
Graph does not irritate me. 

  • alter4
  • [*][*][*]
MPC vs VORBIS vs MP3 vs AAC at 180 kbps
Reply #78
My friends (I ask theirs to help) say that in castanets2 aotuv beta4 is better (aotuv have less pre-echo)
but for me pre-echo is more audible in beta4, my friend say that I have anomalous
ear constitution  . In all cases, Aoyumi thank for great job!!!

P.S. Waiting for Yaztromo tests.
  • Last Edit: 09 September, 2005, 06:15:45 AM by alter4

  • Aoyumi
  • [*][*][*]
MPC vs VORBIS vs MP3 vs AAC at 180 kbps
Reply #79
>alter4
Can the portion which you ABX(ed) be shown?  Or how is it in another portion?
Such information becomes reference of tuning although I cannot promise an improvement. 

  • liekloo
  • [*][*][*][*]
MPC vs VORBIS vs MP3 vs AAC at 180 kbps
Reply #80
I know I'm late. Very late even. But I don't care - Guruboolez man, what a test!  and what a result regarding Vorbis (and LAME)
"E S S E N T I A L" Guide for E A C :

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

  • zima
  • [*][*][*]
MPC vs VORBIS vs MP3 vs AAC at 180 kbps
Reply #81
Very impressive...I wish I had sometimes this kind of determination to finish some of my projects...

BTW, I wonder...
This test was made on classical music. And AFAI remember, classical, at least for mp3, was the easiest scenario. Is it true? If yes than is it possible that in case of other formats thisis also the case?

And a question totally againt HA rules (so answer in spirit of "possible", "not sure", etc. would be OK...): perhaps MPC still is on top when it comes to more demading music, industrial for example and such...

  • beto
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Members (Donating)
MPC vs VORBIS vs MP3 vs AAC at 180 kbps
Reply #82
Quote
I know I'm late. Very late even. But I don't care - Guruboolez man, what a test!  and what a result regarding Vorbis (and LAME)
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=327100"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Me too. I was trying to digest all the impressive amount of information 
Thanks a million for the professionalism and dense information. Kudos to you!!

  • Seymour
  • [*]
MPC vs VORBIS vs MP3 vs AAC at 180 kbps
Reply #83
Guruboolez
Great test!  Thanks. Surely I'll take its results in mind. But for me Musepack is enough. I don't think that I'll get much changing from MPC --standard to Lancer beta 4 at corresponding bitrate...
Aoyumi
Regardless of my decisions you're doing it all right! Thank you too!

  • VEG
  • [*][*]
MPC vs VORBIS vs MP3 vs AAC at 180 kbps
Reply #84
Wow! Vorbis bested that MPC on 180kbps?! It's good news!
Sorry for my English.

MPC vs VORBIS vs MP3 vs AAC at 180 kbps
Reply #85
Thanks for the testing.

I can't help but think how the iTunes mpeg-4 AAC 160kbps VBR format tests up against these other encoders.  Maybe someone will do a test using iTunes 5 and QuickTime 7.  Just curious, why couldn't a 160kbps mpeg-4 AAC file be compared to others?  I know the bitrate is lower than the others but does this cause a flaw in the tests?

  • stephanV
  • [*][*][*][*]
MPC vs VORBIS vs MP3 vs AAC at 180 kbps
Reply #86
Quote
Thanks for the testing.

I can't help but think how the iTunes mpeg-4 AAC 160kbps VBR format tests up against these other encoders.  Maybe someone will do a test using iTunes 5 and QuickTime 7.  Just curious, why couldn't a 160kbps mpeg-4 AAC file be compared to others?  I know the bitrate is lower than the others but does this cause a flaw in the tests?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=328914"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It makes the test more difficult to interpretate. If the codec tested at 160 kbps does worse than the others at higher bit rates (there is a reasonable chance this would happen), then one could always bring up the argument "but it used a lower bit rate", rendering the results meaningless. On the other hand, if the codec tested at 160 kpbs would do equal or better than the ones tested at higher bit rates, logic suggests that it would also do equal or better when tested at that same higher bit rate. So there is no reason to use 160 kbps.

Taking in account the amount of time such a test takes, and the large risk of getting an unuseable result, it would be better to test all codecs at the same bit rate.
"We cannot win against obsession. They care, we don't. They win."

  • Donunus
  • [*][*][*]
MPC vs VORBIS vs MP3 vs AAC at 180 kbps
Reply #87
I was just wondering if upping lame 3.97 to preset extreme or preset fast extreme will give enough of an improvement to beat mpc and vorbis at their current settings in this test with all test samples. pls comment on this

  • beto
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Members (Donating)
MPC vs VORBIS vs MP3 vs AAC at 180 kbps
Reply #88
probably yes. but that's an assumption.

  • SCIF
  • [*]
MPC vs VORBIS vs MP3 vs AAC at 180 kbps
Reply #89
Does anybody with good headphones want to abx-test ogg/mpc/mp3 on rock/metal material. I think power-metal(like Rhapsody), sympho-metal(Dimmu Borgir-Perfection or Vanity) materials aren't easycompress.

  • de Mon
  • [*][*][*][*]
MPC vs VORBIS vs MP3 vs AAC at 180 kbps
Reply #90
Quote
Does anybody with good headphones want to abx-test ogg/mpc/mp3 on rock/metal material. I think power-metal(like Rhapsody), sympho-metal(Dimmu Borgir-Perfection or Vanity) materials aren't easycompress.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=337750"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I bet Guru will not test it. His ears will not bear such genre 
Anyway I would like to see such test. There is more metal than classics in my audio collection.
  • Last Edit: 28 October, 2005, 03:19:21 AM by de Mon
Ogg Vorbis for music and speech [q-2.0 - q6.0]
FLAC for recordings to be edited
Speex for speech

  • kuniklo
  • [*][*][*]
  • Developer (Donating)
MPC vs VORBIS vs MP3 vs AAC at 180 kbps
Reply #91
I just came across this thread today.  Thanks to Guru for his dedicated testing and to Aoyumi for his improvments to vorbis!

  • SCIF
  • [*]
MPC vs VORBIS vs MP3 vs AAC at 180 kbps
Reply #92
Quote
I bet Guru will not test it. His ears will not bear such genre 
Yes. He told me so.
Quote
Anyway I would like to see such test. There is more metal than classics in my audio collection.

I'm not alone $)

  • lextune
  • [*][*][*]
MPC vs VORBIS vs MP3 vs AAC at 180 kbps
Reply #93
Thanks for this interesting and informative post. It was very helpful to me
foobar2000 + EAC + Burrrn = Happiness

  • Garf
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer (Donating)
MPC vs VORBIS vs MP3 vs AAC at 180 kbps
Reply #94
Re-opening so discussion can continue.

  • vinnie97
  • [*][*][*][*]
MPC vs VORBIS vs MP3 vs AAC at 180 kbps
Reply #95
I saw this thread was locked yesterday with no explanation why...was wondering if it was an MPC zealot who managed to gain mod control.

  • kode54
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Administrator
MPC vs VORBIS vs MP3 vs AAC at 180 kbps
Reply #96
Quote
I saw this thread was locked yesterday with no explanation why...was wondering if it was an MPC zealot who managed to gain mod control.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=355872"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Don't worry, it was opened again because there weren't enough useless replies already. Thanks for your contribution, by the way.

  • vinnie97
  • [*][*][*][*]
MPC vs VORBIS vs MP3 vs AAC at 180 kbps
Reply #97
No need to be testy.  I didn't see that *other* thread until after responding to this one.
  • Last Edit: 09 January, 2006, 06:31:09 PM by vinnie97