Skip to main content

Topic: Why does there seem to be a lack of interest in Musepack? (Read 53797 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Why does there seem to be a lack of interest in Musepack?
Reply #50
After hearing a MPC-song I instantly fell in love with the format. The quality of a q5-file is absolutely great!

Sounds like the placebo effect to me.


I mean the complete package... the audio quality is awesome and it encodes so bloody fast. MP3 / AAC / WMA / OGG can't beat that.
The future is lossless!

  • db1989
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Global Moderator
Why does there seem to be a lack of interest in Musepack?
Reply #51
By "awesome", I presume you mean transparent. Anyway, most people aren't bothered about the traits of different codecs, and will just use whichever formats the main companies support/push.

  • DonP
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Members (Donating)
Why does there seem to be a lack of interest in Musepack?
Reply #52
I don't know if anyone else has noticed this, but CDs are heading towards obsolescence.  Now is a great time to make a lossless backup of your valuable collection. In five or ten years time, I don't think the tools are going to be so easily available - for instance, having an optical drive that can rip CDs quickly and securely won't be a huge selling point when most normal people have thrown their CDs in the bin! The time to rip to lossless is now (if you haven't already). 1.5TB HDD = £86 = about 3 pence per CD lossless.


FWIW the trend seems to be keeping compatibility with older formats while the primary purpose of the drive marches on: CD, DVD, Blue-ray,  (next?)

At some point spinning plastic disks of any format may go away.

Back to MPC, I use it on a rockboxed Sansa, but compatibility  is still an issue as all the programs and portables I use can play vorbis.

Why does there seem to be a lack of interest in Musepack?
Reply #53
but rapidly diminishing disc prices make it increasingly silly not to use lossless.

What is at all silly about striving for efficiency? If I want to cut on wasted disk space and file size -which are both very reasonable choices-, it is not at all silly if I then go out and convert my big fat music files to ones that are only half as big with no level of signal deterioration that is in the slightest practice-relevant. In fact I should argue that it is very silly indeed to be unwilling to use so called lossy formats when those do not actually present a loss in audio quality.

And if you are among the economical bottom it is generally preferable to save those 50€ for that extra HDD, even when you live in a country where hitting bottom doesn't mean living on foodstamps in a cockroach-infested poorly isolated apartment with mould croaching up everywhere. THey could just go into that book that helps you acquire the last inch of professional skill that puts you atop that one main competitor, potentially elevating you into a real, cozy middle-class life. Or maybe you're saving up for a stock investment at the right time. As we say very poetically here in Germany: "Small livestock makes droppings too."

Eh, it just doesn't sound good in English.
  • Last Edit: 29 March, 2013, 11:21:31 AM by Wyld Stallyn

  • 2Bdecided
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer
Why does there seem to be a lack of interest in Musepack?
Reply #54
I bet when you dragged this thread up from the depths you didn't expect such a quick response...
but rapidly diminishing disc prices make it increasingly silly not to use lossless.

What is at all silly about striving for efficiency?
Your "efficiency" calculation has totally ignored efficient use of your time in terms of not having to choose a lossy encoder (you're posting in a Musepack thread - choice of lossy encoder is clearly very important, agonising, and potentially problematic), not having to wait for that lossy encoder to encode, being able to check+fix bad rips years later using cuetools without finding a better copy of the CD, not having to re-rip the whole lot again in the future when you realise you need a different lossy codec, and in the event of re-ripping: not having to re-buy some CDs which have been lost/damaged in the meantime. The potential "inefficiencies" with lossy are many and varied - they have driven most HA users of lossy over to lossless in the end!

Saving a few pence on a HDD in comparison to all this is not efficiency...!

The major disadvantage with lossless is that most people who use lossless also use lossy, and having two copies can be a pain. Having just mp3, if you are happy with it, is much less painful - but it's like having a cassette copy - many people will need to go back to the CD (lossless file) in the end.

Cheers,
David.

Why does there seem to be a lack of interest in Musepack?
Reply #55
I didn't actually look at the timestamp. Now that I see it, lol.
Your "efficiency" calculation has totally ignored efficient use of your time in terms of not having to choose a lossy encoder (you're posting in a Musepack thread - choice of lossy encoder is clearly very important, agonising, and potentially problematic), not having to wait for that lossy encoder to encode, being able to check+fix bad rips years later using cuetools without finding a better copy of the CD, not having to re-rip the whole lot again in the future when you realise you need a different lossy codec, and in the event of re-ripping: not having to re-buy some CDs which have been lost/damaged in the meantime. The potential "inefficiencies" with lossy are many and varied - they have driven most HA users of lossy over to lossless in the end!

Good points. I have nothing to return.