WavPack (352/448 kbps) lossy for HQ lossy encodings and transcodingLAME 3.90.2 (by Dibrom) --alt-preset extreme -Z --lowpass 21 or --alt-preset insane --lowpass 21 for my mp3sMP2 384 kbps stereo for the classical music on my portableMusePack 1.15r --insane --xlevel for archiving on CDs
The normal lowpass the presets use should be safe enough.
Edit: Interesting, Garf edited his post without a "This post has been edited"
It will be interesting to see the results MPC+WPL ABX testing.
First of all a lowpass at 21KHz is insane. Most modern cd players cut at 20KHz and only a few people can hear a difference with a lowpass at 16KHz. The normal lowpass the presets use should be safe enough.Secondly. Do you consider wavpacks lossy mode to be of a higher quality than mpc? I don't think even the author of wavpack would agree.Last but not least I would like to see an mp2 encoder that can outperform LAME. Though it shouldn't be impossble I certainly have not heard about such an encoder.To the claim that mp2 should be good because mpc is I can only say that that is really a flawed argument. Is xing good because LAME is relatively good? MPC is way beyond what mp2 ever was/is.edit: ok, after search this board it seems that wavplack lossy mode is actually quite good at that high bitrate and a competitor to mpc (though mpc would use a lower bitrate).
MP2 really rules above ~250kbps, indeed. About the same thing as musepack ~180kbps.
It really annoys me to see: LAME 3.90.2 (by Dibrom) should be 3.90.2 compiled by Dibrom or credit all the lame developers.
Most modern crappy-shitty CD players maybe cut at 20 kHz, but not a decent one. Every CD player worth its name has frequency range at least 20-22050 Hz. When is this insane, why AAC/MPC encode at full bandwidth? (Not the standard settings). Ogg also encodes far beyond 21 kHz So it's no insanity.
MP2 was designed for high bitrates, whereas MP3 not. That's why (but not due to this only fact) it sounds good at these bitrates. This is from one of my PMs I got: QuoteMP2 really rules above ~250kbps, indeed. About the same thing as musepack ~180kbps.If the author allows me it, I will reveal his name.
Most modern crappy-shitty CD players maybe cut at 20 kHz, but not a decent one. Every CD player worth its name has frequency range at least 20-22050 Hz.
When is this insane, why AAC/MPC encode at full bandwidth? (Not the standard settings). Ogg also encodes far beyond 21 kHz So it's no insanity.
WavPack lossy mode at this bitrates is for me definitely better than MPC. Although it doesn't mean MPC is wrong or of insufficient quality. My reasons were stated here http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....&f=1&t=8280&hl=
As for the author of WavPack... I think no developer of any codec would express to the another codec in terms of quality.
MP2 was designed for high bitrates, whereas MP3 not.
That's why (but not due to this only fact) it sounds good at these bitrates.
Once the quality exceeds what can be measured in ABX tests, I suspect that most of the people at HA would say that all codecs are the same, but I don't believe that. There is no doubt that WavPack's lossy mode provides better quality than other lossy codecs above some bitrate because it provides a straight line to lossless encoding which the others do not.
--bah.. You ^might^ be able to hear a 22khz tone, but unless it was just that tone at high intensity and nothing else, you wouldnt hear it in music. No chance.
Stop repeat BS you read here and there on the HA
Or do you think all the developers of these codecs are stupids who don't know what they are doing?
Dear Lev, it really doesn't matter, if you can hear it or not. Or do you think all the developers of these codecs are stupids who don't know what they are doing?
Also all the CD players' manufacturers? Or those who record and mix the CDs?
Why was SACD or DVD-A developed?
This matter was discussed here many a time, I guess. Stop repeat BS you read here and there on the HA and really learn something about the matter. It would really help you, believe me.[/qoute]I couldn't have said it better, why don't you do this?
Last I looked, MPC at standard level was lowpassing at 20kHz. Ogg at standard level is below that even. The most aggressive modes are called 'insane' and 'braindead' for a reason.
What I read from that is that WavPack is better for you because it gives you the warm fuzzy feeling (even though you admit MPC is tranparent for you).
I've asked you about the encoder and settings you use. You didn't respond. Please do.
If you load in a Vorbis file, even encoded at high bitrates, you'll see it'll almost never goes over +- 19kHz.
Some CD's are pre-lowpased at 20kHz. Don't find them much anymore, but then again, not lowpassing fits in with the trend to compress all dynamics out of them I guess.
To push DRM.
I couldn't have said it better, why don't you do this?
If you read carefully, I wrote (Not in the standard settings).
That's your interpretation. I never said anything like that. I mentioned spatial resolution, no "warm fuzzy feeling".
I simply don't believe this is the only reason. It gonna get cracked as everything else.
Just because you are one of the few people here I respect for their work, I won't react to this...
I tested a lot with Vorbis 1.0 at -q4 and the frequency response war up to 21,3 kHz...
I may be wrong but doesn't SACD & DVD-A allow easier mastering & not allow clipping & compression?
Error correction would be much better than current CDDA
surround sound support
QuoteError correction would be much better than current CDDAIs it of any significance? Many CDDA's nowadays have crippled error correction for 'copy protection'.
But you are right, another good reason is that they can 'sell people new expensive equipment'. (Those are Frank Klemms words)