Skip to main content

Topic: User opions wanted (Read 13711 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • Progenator
  • [*]
User opions wanted
Hi,
        I recently installed Rockbox firmware on my Iriver I-hp 120, and quite stoked about it, its great.
        I am befuddled though, as to which lossy format to use.  I know MPC is supposed to be the best at 128kbps and up, but the MPC plays but does not seek with it.  I have seen posts here (at hydrgogen audio) with people saying MPC at insane may as well be considered lossless for listening purposes. Is it that good? If it is, I would go without the seeking for music.
Quality AND size are my considerations.  I tend to encode my stuff at 160-220 weighing both factors. For my car steareo I used lame at 320. I can definately notice the difference between an ogg and lame at the same bitrates (Radiohead - Karma Police at 160) .

I also don't know how a lossy wavpack (which is well supported on the rockbox) compares to OGG or MPC. I'd assume in quality: 1. MPC 2. OGG 3.Wavpack, but thats just an assumption.

Would like some opinions on this and maybe an all inclusive lossy format test.

  • guruboolez
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Members (Donating)
User opions wanted
Reply #1
Nobody has posted any listening test at very high bitrate (> 230 kbps). Requesting opinions would therefore look like a call to massive TOS#8 violation and to pure zealotry.

For MPC superiority at high bitrate, you should compare this test and this one. I wouldn't consider the old Musepack superiority as valid anymore without any modern and complete checkup.

Last but not least, other members' opinions won't help you. What matters isn't what member no.xxx or member no.yyy have experienced (or rather have in mind without performing any test) but what matters is what you can hear. If you're happy with one format at a given bitrate, you shoudn't base any change on someone else feelings.
Cheers
  • Last Edit: 13 February, 2006, 11:18:35 AM by guruboolez

  • Garf
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer (Donating)
User opions wanted
Reply #2
Your information is outdated.

http://www.maresweb.de/listening-tests/mf-128-1/results.htm (new)
http://www.rjamorim.com/test/multiformat128/results.html (older)

There seems to be no indication that Musepack is the best at 128kbps. Also, the performance of the encoders in the latest test at 128kbps was so good it seems hard to justify much larger bitrates. You're certainly unlikely to be able to hear the difference during casual listening (and your original claim is unlikely to be accepted here without more evidence).
  • Last Edit: 13 February, 2006, 11:25:23 AM by Garf

  • Progenator
  • [*]
User opions wanted
Reply #3
Your right about my original claim.  Listening again I can't hear any difference, I must have been picking on a certain  codec that day.  I originally thought that the ogg had a more crystal-sharper sound, thats the way I thought of it.  Now that I rethink it, the words 'crystal' and 'sharp' sound are solid historical buzz words for  advertsing audio products.

.: I was looking for something and found it, how very unscientific. Then again I am not a scientist, or a salesperson.

I wonder which codec has the best image...

Sorry for being misleading.

  • bryant
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer (Donating)
User opions wanted
Reply #4
Quote
I also don't know how a lossy wavpack (which is well supported on the rockbox) compares to OGG or MPC. I'd assume in quality: 1. MPC 2. OGG 3.Wavpack, but thats just an assumption.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=363944"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

WavPack really doesn't make any sense as a stand-alone lossy codec, except maybe at very high bitrates (>320 kbps) or when you are forced to transcode to or from another lossy format.

However, the hybrid mode is handy for RockBox because you can keep the correction files on your PC for lossless and just copy the lossy versions to your portable.

  • salpro
  • [*][*]
User opions wanted
Reply #5
mpc main advantage  is speed of encoding and decoding in my humble "opinion"
if this is  incorrect please delete my post without notification mr moderator

  • guruboolez
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Members (Donating)
User opions wanted
Reply #6
MPC has lost most of early advantages as superior quality and especially superior encoding speed. Vorbis is nowadays much faster, and WavPack outperforms them both:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....ndpost&p=313747

For decoding speed, Rockbox developers got a lot of troubles to ensure real-time MPC decoding. MPC is indeed very fast, but on PC only (it's also slow on MacOS IIRC). Not on Rockbox.
  • Last Edit: 17 February, 2006, 05:07:03 PM by guruboolez

  • jl47
  • [*]
User opions wanted
Reply #7
Hi,

I agree, mpc doesn't hold any quality over ogg.  At high bitrates, it isn't the bitrate that counts so much as the way the encoder stores the information/programming.  There may be artifacts in mp3 at 320 that aren't present in mpc or ogg at 96 or 128.  So just giving more bitrate encoding space doesn't necessarily guarantee any better quality if the program encoding has flaws that produce artifacts at any bitrate.  An analogy would be a racecar that you want to perform better.  Just putting on a larger gastank and tuneup won't make it much faster/perform any better if the engine isn't as efficient as the next car with a smaller/better designed engine.

  • Yaztromo
  • [*][*][*]
User opions wanted
Reply #8
Go with OGG.

MPC is outdated and you can't seek.  Quality is no better than OGG.

MP3 quality not on par with OGG.

Wavpack file sizes are too big at high quality levels.

  • vinnie97
  • [*][*][*][*]
User opions wanted
Reply #9
good to see these supposed MPC superiority claims getting properly dispelled.

  • senab
  • [*][*][*]
User opions wanted
Reply #10
The thing to think about is what you want, and how it sounds to you...

I personally use Vorbis for the fact it's natively gapless and offers hi-quality encoding.

  • tman
  • [*][*]
User opions wanted
Reply #11
I'm new to all this, but the thing keeping me away from OGG right now is that I am planning on getting a COWON X5L and on that player OGG has the LARGEST gaps of all supported formats, which seems to defeat one of the big advantages of OGG. Somone posted samples of a seamless track transition for all formats. MP3 gap was .08 sec, OGG was .5 sec.  (when are the new SIGMATEL based players coming out????)

  • bubka
  • [*][*][*]
User opions wanted
Reply #12
let's get into the battery life debate
Chaintech AV-710

  • user
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
User opions wanted
Reply #13
Quote
Go with OGG.

MPC is outdated and you can't seek.  Quality is no better than OGG.

MP3 quality not on par with OGG.

Wavpack file sizes are too big at high quality levels.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=367454"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


This post of Yaztromo shows signs of ogg zealotry. Neither is MPC outdated (he didn´t tell in which aspects), nor provides he listening tests of comparisons at some bitrate. These failures he made in favour of ogg hassling against mpc & mp3(Lame).
I recommend him reading the 128k tests, the old one containing mpc and showing, that MPC is easily on par with ogg, even at that low bitrate,
and the new one, where new Lame shows, that mp3-lame is quite on par with eg. ogg.

The sentence about wavpacks sizes doesn't make any sense. You need to specify q-level and bitrates, and then compare...

As bryant pointed out, as PC-HiFi/portable solution, wavpack hybrid makes sense.
As well MPC as PC-HiFi/portable solution makes also sense, imo.
Whereas Ogg and mp3 can be considered more to the portable usage.
www.High-Quality.ch.vu -- High Quality Audio Archiving Tutorials

  • Yaztromo
  • [*][*][*]
User opions wanted
Reply #14
Quote
This post of Yaztromo shows signs of ogg zealotry.


OGG isn't my format of choice, but I do think it should be the OP's format of choice.

Quote
Neither is MPC outdated (he didn´t tell in which aspects),


It hasn't been actively developed for ages (except some bug fix updates. Although I agree this is not so important.

Quote
nor provides he listening tests of comparisons at some bitrate. These failures he made in favour of ogg hassling against mpc & mp3(Lame).


I have not claimed OGG superiority in terms of audio quality at X bitrate over MPC. Please reread my post.

Quote
I recommend him reading the 128k tests, the old one containing mpc and showing, that MPC is easily on par with ogg, even at that low bitrate,
and the new one, where new Lame shows, that mp3-lame is quite on par with eg. ogg.


I understand the OP wants transparency at the smallest file size. Why would he be interested in 128k tests? I think we're talking about higher bitrates.

Quote
The sentence about wavpacks sizes doesn't make any sense. You need to specify q-level and bitrates, and then compare...


I would guess that for most people OGG is transparent (except for killer samples of course) around Q5 to 6 onwards. Wavpack cannot compete at this bitrate. It needs considerably more bits to achieve transparency (256k upwards).

And since the OP is interested in both size and quality, there really is no point in the larger file sizes of Wavpack when OGG can give him transparency at a lower bit rate.

Quote
Whereas Ogg and mp3 can be considered more to the portable usage.


What?!...What kind of crazy statement is this? OGG and MP3 can be considered perfect for Hi-Fi usage. Hell even WMA can provided the bit rates high enough.


Edit: Fixed quotes not working.

Edit 2:
Also your post suggests MPC is superior in terms of audio quality over OGG. Please see Guru's high bitrate tests,
  • Last Edit: 27 February, 2006, 11:46:30 AM by Yaztromo

User opions wanted
Reply #15
Ogg Vorbis
see the 80kbps listening test if you think otherwise (i am assuming lower bitrates like 80kbps are more desirable for a portable)
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....96&#entry312296
Vorbis-q0-lowpass99
lame3.93.1-q5-V9-k-nspsytune

  • saratoga
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
User opions wanted
Reply #16
Quote
I have not claimed OGG superiority in terms of audio quality at X bitrate over MPC. Please reread my post.


No, you made baseless (and meaninglessly vague IMO) claims about the quality of vorbis against MP3.

  • Yaztromo
  • [*][*][*]
User opions wanted
Reply #17
Quote
Quote
I have not claimed OGG superiority in terms of audio quality at X bitrate over MPC. Please reread my post.


No, you made baseless (and meaninglessly vague IMO) claims about the quality of vorbis against MP3.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


[a href="http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=36465#]http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....howtopic=36465#[/url]

At high bitrates OGG superiority over MP3 far from baseless.

EDIT:

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=35438

And at low bitrates too.
  • Last Edit: 28 February, 2006, 04:33:11 AM by Yaztromo

  • Martel
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
User opions wanted
Reply #18
Quote
Ogg Vorbis
see the 80kbps listening test if you think otherwise (i am assuming lower bitrates like 80kbps are more desirable for a portable)
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....96&#entry312296
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=367953"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


If you're listening with something other than ears, perhaps. 
If you're using a 4-euro pair of headphones, even better.
If you're using a HDD portable without the two previously mentioned specialities, NEVER!!!

edit: I mocked the 80kbps desirability for portables...
  • Last Edit: 28 February, 2006, 04:45:48 AM by Martel
IE4 Rockbox Clip+ AAC@192; HD 668B/HD 518 Xonar DX FB2k FLAC;

  • guruboolez
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Members (Donating)
User opions wanted
Reply #19
Quote
EDIT:

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=35438

And at low bitrates too.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

For low bitrate comparison between MPC and Vorbis, use rather this:


[a href="http://forum.hardware.fr/hardwarefr/VideoSon/MP3-WMA-AAC-OGG-qualite-kbps-evaluation-sujet-84950-1.htm]http://forum.hardware.fr/hardwarefr/VideoS...jet-84950-1.htm[/url]

  • vinnie97
  • [*][*][*][*]
User opions wanted
Reply #20
Quote
Quote
Ogg Vorbis
see the 80kbps listening test if you think otherwise (i am assuming lower bitrates like 80kbps are more desirable for a portable)
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....96&#entry312296
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=367953"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


If you're listening with something other than ears, perhaps. 
If you're using a 4-euro pair of headphones, even better.
If you're using a HDD portable without the two previously mentioned specialities, NEVER!!!

edit: I mocked the 80kbps desirability for portables...
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=367995"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Not all of us have your golden ears and whether you want to face the fact that Ogg in its latest beta can churn out some remarkingly good-sounding 80 kbps files or not is not the OP's concern.  And this is especially true for those who live active lifestyles where sound quality has even greater potential of being disrupted by environmental sounds.  This makes 80 kbps Oggs a sweet spot for flash players and the sole reason I purchased a Nano 4GB (once it was announced that Rockbox was functional ).
  • Last Edit: 28 February, 2006, 11:40:42 AM by vinnie97

  • xmixahlx
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
User opions wanted
Reply #21
why would you seek through a song?

i don't get it...

honestly, i think your options are: lame, vorbis, musepack

use lame if you want maximum compatibility (software/hardware playback)

if you go too low in bitrate (<128) , then i would suggest vorbis.

if you aren't then i would suggest musepack.

the notion that because musepack hasn't been developed in the quality realm excludes it from usage is ridiculous...

...and using the rockbox firmware, you might as well take advantage of some great (rare) features


later

  • senab
  • [*][*][*]
User opions wanted
Reply #22
Quote
...and using the rockbox firmware, you might as well take advantage of some great (rare) features
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=368055"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Just because a feature is rare, doesn't mean it is the best option. Tbh, the only way for the OP to choose is to encode a couple of tracks in various formats, and test them on the Rockbox. 

  • xmixahlx
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
User opions wanted
Reply #23
Quote
Quote
...and using the rockbox firmware, you might as well take advantage of some great (rare) features
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=368055"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Just because a feature is rare, doesn't mean it is the best option. Tbh, the only way for the OP to choose is to encode a couple of tracks in various formats, and test them on the Rockbox. 
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=368062"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

SORRY! MP3 IT IS!

i'm glad you were able to increase your post count a bit.

also, you must not have noticed my smiley - indicating a tongue-in-cheek comment.

if i was being serious i would not have included the previous 5 statements.


later

  • Yaztromo
  • [*][*][*]
User opions wanted
Reply #24
Quote
also, you must not have noticed my smiley - indicating a tongue-in-cheek comment.

[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=368153"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


More appropriate would have been  or