I just noticed in the polls that more people use mpc than mp3!
Bearing in mind that I know nothing about mpc, could anyone explain the benefits over mp3?
I use alt-preset extreme... does anyone recommend I upgrade to mpc?
Please search. Some great threads have already covered this.
So MPC at it Greatest Sound Quality..., ...sounds better than .OGG at it's Best? (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=28333)
320 kps MP3 or --quality 7 --xlevel MPC ?, Chosing betw. MP3 & MPC (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=14882&hl=mp3)
Why is MPC perceived to be the best? (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=18511)
That poll only applies to Hydrogenaudio. It makes no sense outside this forum (where most people, by far, use MP3, and in second place comes WMA)
The summary is: MPC is better than MP3 in quality, but worse in support.
Thanks, guys.
It sounds amazing and what really surprises me is the speed of compression, really fast. Not supported very well though but hey I only use Winamp and there is a plugin for that, so it's fine for me.
And you had to bump a two years old topic just to say that... OK...
I guess that creating a new thread (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=43173) was not enough
EDIT: remove last sentence.
EDIT2: for memory, this test (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=35531&view=findpost&p=313747) may be useful...
Damned if you do, damned if you don't. It's hard being a newbie to the whole "forum" thing.
I've seen newbies crucified for making a new thread when a two year old thread already covered the topic.…
I just noticed in the polls that more people use mpc than mp3!
Bearing in mind that I know nothing about mpc, could anyone explain the benefits over mp3?
I use alt-preset extreme... does anyone recommend I upgrade to mpc?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=249769"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
1) I don't recommend it too much work, very tiny benefit
2) yes, at the given bitrate mpc reach better quality than mp3
3) if you need better quality than mp3, stick with ogg instead, I can't tell if it's better than mpc, but at least much more supported and there is develompent still going into it
That poll only applies to Hydrogenaudio. It makes no sense outside this forum (where most people, by far, use MP3, and in second place comes WMA)
The summary is: MPC is better than MP3 in quality, but worse in support.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=249775"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Not even in this forum anymore, I would say.
Too bad for MPC
I still have everything in mpc and continue to encode to it.
it could be argued that diferent samples were used ... even diferent people probably submited results ... anyway ....
(http://www.webearce.com.ar/roselite.png)
Maybe it's time for a new lossy encoder poll. Can this be arranged?
EDIT: Scratch that. The one from Feb 2005 is still at the top of the polls list and apparently being added to.
Yea, but it's over a year old...with much more development across several formats since that time. I don't know how one gets permission to create new polls.
Re: hybridfan being a newb, check his registration date: Joined: 11-July 03
I still have everything in mpc and continue to encode to it.
Why are you still encoding to it? What perceptual benefit can there possibly still be? I guess some people are just set in their ways. I had some MPC backups from 2003/4 but reencoded what I still have lossless/original copies of to Vorbis this year.
Finally, has anyone compared compression times with the latest Lancer release versus the latest MPC? Which is faster...it'd be nice to put this Hybridfan hype to rest.
Yea, but it's over a year old...with much more development across several formats since that time. I don't know how one gets permission to create new polls.
Why are you still encoding to it? What perceptual benefit can there possibly still be? I guess some people are just set in their ways. I
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=378050"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
What a load of BS Do you actually know what you are talking about? If MPC was transparent back then, it is still now. There's not so much quality improvement in other lossy encoders really. MPC has already been very well tuned and there is not much room for improvement. Most of what SV8 was planned to bring is not related to quality.
There're many benefits to MPC, one of them is that it is a subband codec therefore transcoding to MP3/Vorbis results in less audible loss.
IMO only Vorbis now could come close to the level of excellence MPC has been. And if Vorbis is doing so well recently, it's because of Aoyumi. I don't remember xiph really contributing to the development much otherwise for a while. Similarly if MPC was doing very well in the past, it was because of Klemm. Now that there's no bigshot, MPC development seems to be stalled. But it already does an amazing job and I personally do not care & heavily use MPC. I trust MPC at high bitrates more and I have plenty of space (though not as much as lossless) on my dedicated music system. When I need portability I simply transcode and transfer, my DAP does not play Vorbis either. It all depends on what your personal requirements are. Otherwise the future is lossless anyway.
You know, I get the impression you've really got a chip on your shoulder. Here's some more BS for you in re: to MPC:
1.) You might as well go lossless if you're going to be doing transcoding, tho' I'll give you this.
2.) Sequencing is a sluggish pain.
3.) Hardware support has never been so hot for MPC, tho' Rockbox has gone a long ways in rectifying this.
Vorbis, in spite of whose done the tuning, is currently a smarter choice for lossy, especially if you want a combination of smaller file sizes and greater hardware support (personal DAPs being the key here).
PS. What you quoted was in regards to the POLL being a year old...maybe that's why you mistakenly called me on BS. I think that's long enough with enough development commited to have another lossy poll....and I think lossy is here to stay for some time, at least 9 years if we go by your year-old prediction.
Or maybe you just can't bear to see MPC lose the Hydrogenaudio popularity contest.
1.) You might as well go lossless if you're going to be doing transcoding, tho' I'll give you this.
How do you know that? Do you know that I have 400GB hard drive full 70% of which is MPC? Is it worth to invest in >1TB of space (>2TB with backups) for no audible difference? I'd rather invest in speakers.
2.) Sequencing is a sluggish pain.
What do you mean?
3.) Hardware support has never been so hot for MPC, tho' Rockbox has gone a long ways in rectifying this.
And for Vorbis it's too hot? Only Samsung and iAudio really supports it. iRiver has half baked support. It's very likely that you'd end up transcoding if your archive is in Vorbis unless you don't mind seriously limiting your DAP choices. I think if portability is important I'd rather use MP3, since it's supported everywhere and (guess what) LAME is doing a great job too.
I give you that Vorbis is also a good choice. But one can't just dismiss MPC so easily.
Anyway let's focus on what the original poster is asking. If you are interested in playback on a home audio system then MPC would probably be a better choice than MP3, as it'll be higher in quality per bitrate. Also Ape2 tags of MPC are more flexible. However for all purposes of portability you're better off with MP3.
Apologies, I meant "seeking" instead of "sequencing." That's what I get for posting in haste.
There're many benefits to MPC, one of them is that it is a subband codec therefore transcoding to MP3/Vorbis results in less audible loss.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=378077")
Is there any evidence to backup this idea?
I tried once on a [a href="http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=32440&hl=]Short re-encoding blind listening test[/url] and MPC wasn't superior to Vorbis on the decoding side. Of course, I didn't tested enough samples to draw reliable conclusion, but I didn't discover any elaborated test proving that subband encoders are better for transcoding purpose. Do you have a link?
IMO only Vorbis now could come close to the level of excellence MPC has been.
That's your opinion, but what about real experience - a listening test?
Again, the last I did (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=36465&hl=) in the specific area of Musepack's excellency ended on aoTuV superiority. And again, the results are personal and limited to non-killer-and-classical music - but again for a last time I still have problems to find a more elaborate listening test showing MPC benefits over a modern encoder. Do you have a link to backup your claims?
You know what's funny, people keep talking lossless while operating 128k tets.
I think Doom9 boards has nice a feature, that's probably worth adopting: sending threads with 'better than' and 'best' in the title straight to hell
And you had to bump a two years old topic just to say that... OK...
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=377809"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes so what if I did, I have only started using it and impressed with the results, maybe because it isn't supported that well it should be bumped.
I think Doom9 boards has nice a feature, that's probably worth adopting: sending threads with 'better than' and 'best' in the title straight to hell
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=378247"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
IMHO that's rather a limitation of doom9 not offering a proper valid method to backup such claims. What's the point of discussing different codecs in the view of an end user if no ranking in regard of previously defined aspects can be made?
maybe because it isn't supported that well it should be bumped.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=378250"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
In my opinion, developers should focus on improving codecs like AAC, Ogg Vorbis or even MP3 (although MP3 is slowly reaching its maximum abilities).
Also, what's the point in receiving more support when its development almost ceased?
I think Doom9 boards has nice a feature, that's probably worth adopting: sending threads with 'better than' and 'best' in the title straight to hell
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=378247"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
With such nice feature, MPC wouldn't be adopted by more than 3 guy on the world. It's precisely because MPC was said to be so better to all lossy formats that people started to use something with few software support (in 2001-2002), no hardware one, obscure patent situation, scrubby seeking... I'm one of these people who followed all mpc's gurus in the early days.
Moreover, HA was founded during the alt-preset maturation. It's a task which supposes that
reliable opinions about audio quality is possible. As a consequence, it would be illogical to deny to members the right to ask about quality comparison. Don't forget that sticky were made to inform people what precisely the... best settings are!
Well, ok. Although recommended and best aren't the same.
There's helluva difference between 'I really wanna try this codec and wanna know what the good settings for this particular purpose would be' and 'What's the best codec of them all' soon falling down to 'I heard yer prefered codec is better/bigger/longer than mine, well, that's not true...', the latter is like invitation to the bashing/flamewars/fanboyism/hurt feelings/namescalling and what not.
So if you're into streaming over ISDN or encoding audio for DVD backup, you probably exclude certain codecs from the consideration, and vice versa.
In another words I can't quite remember something starting like this and leading to something constructive.
Well, if you would let me, i will add some comments...
Usually i use Wavpack to make lossless copies of discs...but when it comes to my PC audio or Rockboxed Ipod i stick to lossy codecs...
Here i have two options...
1. MPC, -8.0, appr. 280-300kbps
yeah, i really like it for jazz, classics and some other kinds of deep and sensitive music (don't ask me how i choose, it is intuition, i guess)...the panaroma is vivid and reach and i simply it adore...
I even turn a blind eye to the fact it has no seeking...i simply love the way it sounds...
2. Ogg, -q6 (aoyumi), appr. 192kbps
I use this codec based on some conclusions kindly made by guruboolez who admitted that this preset of this codec has shown tremendous results in his tests...so, if it comes to pop or dance music, i usually choose this codec...
I didn't check Ogg at higher bitrates and I don't feel i need it since i am pretty much content with MPC...however, MPC is not really good at low bitrates, so i choose Ogg -q6...
That is basically my point...
Well, ok. Although recommended and best aren't the same.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=378303"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
True, but recommendation (at least here) are based on the quality criterion (i.e. we're recommending
x over
y because
x is clearly the best). --alt-preset were recommended over --r3mix (ultra-popular) only because it was better. LAME was recommended over Fhg, Blade, Xing for the same reason. The entire forum is haunted by the same question: what's the best setting? what's the best encoder? what's the best format? The purpose of TOS#8 is precisely a safeguard against trolling or complete anarchy due to the
subjective argument. It's because ABX tests are possible and reliable that people could perfectly:
- claim that x is better than y
- help to improve any encoder by a proper and rational feedback
- ask to other people for trustable advices.
ABX tests are apparently much harder to set on video (lack of software?) and without such proper methodology calls for advice could quickly turn into massive trolling and bashfest. Hence Doom's TOS#12 I suppose.
There's helluva difference between 'I really wanna try this codec and wanna know what the good settings for this particular purpose would be' and 'What's the best codec of them all' soon falling down to 'I heard yer prefered codec is better/bigger/longer than mine, well, that's not true...', the latter is like invitation to the bashing/flamewars/fanboyism/hurt feelings/namescalling and what not.
True, but again this board has a protection against this risk. And it worked pretty well.
So if you're into streaming over ISDN or encoding audio for DVD backup, you probably exclude certain codecs from the consideration, and vice versa.
That's obvious. But in the present case, someone was very precise: LAME --preset extreme or Musepack? He didn't asked for a general position about MP3 vs MPC.
In another words I can't quite remember something starting like this and leading to something constructive.
As I said, MPC "success" is based on similar threads... A lot of people are (or were) convinced that MPC --insane or --braindead is something necessary. No need to be a genius to understand that most of these people could safely use --standard as well or even MP3 at 130 kbps to get the same perceptual quality. Just take a look on the few results sent on various listening tests or read Seed's complaints about the
total lack of feedback of the MPC audiophile community The existence of a small MPC community is certainly not based on personal and double-blind experience of its superiority at 180 kbps, but rather on blind-trust and self-persuasion of most users. If I'm wrong, I wonder where are located all these testers. Not on HA for sure
The Doom9 ban isn't on discussion, it's on people who say "this is better than that" without backup or where it's better (support? speed? top quality? low-bitrate quality? interface?), or similarly, people who come in and ask "what's the best x" without specifying exactly what they're looking for. It leads to a lot of flamewars and bullshit, as you might imagine, but the rule is no different than calling posters here on bullshit claims. *shrug* (Backing up what ak said.)
Personally, I love mpc, because it's a great format to transcode into my beloved vorbis with minimal degredation.
it's a great format to transcode into my beloved vorbis with minimal degredation. [a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=378330"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
We are still waiting for proofs on that.
Personally, I love mpc, because it's a great format to transcode into my beloved vorbis with minimal degredation.
lol, great conciliatory answer.
It leads to a lot of flamewars and bullshit, as you might imagine, but the rule is no different than calling posters here on bullshit claims. *shrug* (Backing up what ak said.)
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=378330"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You're a new member according to your joining date (but perhaps you're reading HA for a long time). HA.org is four years old, and several (if not most) debates on the
what is best? subject were nicely conduced. There's a recycle bin and vigilant moderators to limit excesses such as trolling or blatant zealotry. Most people are debating on a rational basis, basing most of their claims on ABX results. There's no need to forbid such debates as long as a valid method for valid statements exists.
In the early day, MPC was always showed by their supporter as the ultimate audiophile solution for lossy encodings, beating AAC, LAME and Vorbis. You can still see some persistence of this fading audiophile aura on small and less informed boards on the web. Now that MPC is quite dead, having no advantages at all [it doesn't mean that it suddenly becomes bad], I find quite amusing that a MPC developer is suggesting on this board that opinions or calls for opinions about audio quality should be avoided. It reminds me another MPC developer who suddently became allergic to ABX results and TOS#8 when it started to play against his format.
I've never had any interest in MPC, personally... I'm sure it's better than MP3 in bitrate/quality and transcoding quality, but the total lack of support across the board and lack of development is a little more than a big turnoff.
The only use I've ever had for MPC is that some metal/punk on P2P networks is/was encoded in it, which actually rather surprised me. I've seen more MPC files than ogg or even WMA when looking on the e-donkey network (via eMule).
some metal/punk on P2P networks is/was encoded in it
haha, I've noticed this same phenomenon. It seems some metal heads are closet audiophiles.
I've noticed this same phenomenon. It seems some metal heads are closet audiophiles.
I've seen the same phenomenon. I remember that in some in discussions people claimed that mpc can have the same quality that mp3, but using lesser bitrates. My metal encoded songs usually go up to 230kbps in standard, so i think they started using mpc for that.
...or maybe as they like to show themselves as underground ones, why not use an "underground" format?
some metal/punk on P2P networks is/was encoded in it
haha, I've noticed this same phenomenon. It seems some metal heads are closet audiophiles.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=378432"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Probably the folks from MPC-Donkey. A lot of people there are metal heads.
weird...
April jokes ?
I knew (and posted) during the prediscussion of the latest 128k multiformat test, that cross-test-references are necessary and interesting in general,
and that without this, sooner or later somebody will come and connect the old tests (eg. with mpc versions) and the new test (eg. without mpc), to show "somewhat", haha, a comparison between mpc measured/ranked in old tests to compare the old "value" with formats in new tests and their new "values".
You made my day !
MPC,
that is great usage in Windows & Linux,
no (serious) flaws in higher qualities like 7 or 8,
wonderful small-sized high quality backup solution (on DVD+R) for my Lossless music.
Other formats are still struggling to reach the quality.
For portable factory made hardware: MP3 Lame -V5 -vbr-new the way I'm going. That's universal playable on devices.
well, the story of software & their developers (not especially mpc related) is weirdo sometimes, but if the result is fine..., they deserve respect, even if it isn't 100% perfect, that's life, to have tried and have made something, that's important
Lack of testers in the higher bitrate range:
- headphone testing does not reveal the complete truth about formats
- no fun to participate due to avoid being involved later into personal conflicts, as formats' artefacts could be taken personally by the dev..., HA is too small...
- eg. the latest 130k multiformat test with Lame -V5 participating, where the modern codecs succeeded well, all... -> Despite the easy spotting of lack of highs/attacks with higher frequencies with -V5 -vbr-new via good speakers in bigger living-room, and me is meanwhile over 30 with imo worse listening abilities than in my 17-28 years..., Lame -V5 is good, if you don't make A/B-X listening at good HiFi.
As I don't invest much of my freetime in virtual internet fora, but follow eg. HA regularly, I rate some core HA group (with some nice exceptions) as relative small group of eager technicians, some people who know what they are talking about, and a group, who simply rewrite again and again, what others have said before, who want to belong to the core, to be felt accepted by the group. Some sort of group/sect behaviour with own dynamics.
Due to group dynamics and relations, the groups' opinions tend sometimes in 1 direction, sometimes to other directions with the goal to make "policy", to diss formats/sub-groups of people, sometimes arised by personal conflicts.
The solution is simple,
go back to one of HA principles, listen yourself, judge yourself.
...or maybe as they like to show themselves as underground ones, why not use an "underground" format?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=378467"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I have to say I'm a little guilty of that, but that's not saying I started encoding to MPC blindly, I did the required research, I understood the shortcomings about the nonexistent HW compatibility (didn't have an mp3 player at the time), and I seldom seek through my songs so I was the perfect candidate. I did manage to convert some freinds over to the MusePack camp before I switched completeley to mp3 when I got a DAP and an mp3 capable stereo for my car.
Ahh the memories... fast encoding, simple and easy tagging, and the warm fuzzy feeling I got when I felt like part of an (underground) audio-minority!
Other formats are still struggling to reach the quality.
Prove it.
The solution is simple,
go back to one of HA principles, listen yourself, judge yourself.[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=378772"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Don't generalize over anything should be another principle.
Other formats are still struggling to reach the quality.
The only fellows with golden ears (most notably, Guru) who have done such tests have proven otherwise. And what would be the point for MPC inclusion in the last 128 kbps test? If I'm not mistaken, there had been no tuning for it in that range since the last public test. I don't think anyone is still arguing against the superiority of MPC over MP3 (tho' it would be interesting to know how well the latest LAME release measured up against it at 128 kbps). That just seems to be the claim of someone who is paranoid about the fading glory of their favorite format...
Other formats are still struggling to reach the quality.
really?
(http://www.webearce.com.ar/roselite.png)
Other formats are still struggling to reach the quality.
really?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=378838"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Keep in mind ~128kbps was/is not MPC's strong point.
Keep in mind ~128kbps was/is not MPC's strong point.
if you are that close to a perfect 5, i wonder how much can you improve ...
Keep in mind ~128kbps was/is not MPC's strong point.
if you are that close to a perfect 5, i wonder how much can you improve ...
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=378841"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
LOL, got me there
no (serious) flaws in higher qualities like 7 or 8[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=378772"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
No, serious? Does it imply that MPC is a great format because it doesn't have serious troubles at ~250 kbps? AFAIK, several encoders are in the same position.
wonderful small-sized high quality backup solution (on DVD+R) for my Lossless music.
Could be said for other formats/encoders, with additional feature as:
• no curruption issue (one error within MPC stream, and all following parts are lost; other formats as Vorbis, MP3, MP4/AAC, the resync is still possible).
• better seeking
Other formats are still struggling to reach the quality.
Wake up: we're not in 2001 anymore.
- headphone testing does not reveal the complete truth about formats
True: headphones are like microscop. They make subtle distortions audible whereas speakers erase them. Without headphone, there's no need anymore for ultra-robust encoders. Even inferior implemetation of MP3 are transparent at this bitrate.
- no fun to participate due to avoid being involved later into personal conflicts, as formats' artefacts could be taken personally by the dev..., HA is too small...
I've submitted problem samples and ABX tests to several developers:
- LAME
- iTunes AAC
- Nero AAc
- FAAC
- MPC
- WavPack Lossy
- Vorbis (Garf, Aouymi, QuantumKnot)
and the conflict only occurs with one "development" team.
This problem only exist with MPC aka people who can't improve the psymodel by themselves but who can deny all validity to any annoying listening test - and they're champion for this kind of trolling.
A while back i tried lame -V 2 and at on the few tracks i tried i didn't hear any obvious flaws. I've also tested high bitrate ogg vorbis (an older aotuv iirc) in the past and it was also fine. The only problem i see is trackrecord, musepack has been at this quality for level for quite some time, so a lot of files are encoded with these "high level" encoders. This leads to the problem with something like mp3, it's the people who use it, if 95% of the world used eac(secure mode, test©) or similar and encoded to lame -V 2 (-vbrnew) or better than there would not be a problem. The people who use mpc are generally a little more carefull about what they do. I still wouldn't trust mp3 for backups, might trust mpc(because i have more experience with that), but i prefer flac, but mp3 would not be bad for portable transcoding.
- headphone testing does not reveal the complete truth about formats
True: headphones are like microscop. They make subtle distortions audible whereas speakers erase them. Without headphone, there's no need anymore for ultra-robust encoders. Even inferior implemetation of MP3 are transparent at this bitrate.
There are also speaker systems that are like microscopes. Not mine, yet.
One different thing:
I had some low frequency clicks i wasn´t able to hear on my HD-590s that jumped onto me on my system in the living room. These were artifacts you get on read errors and produce clicks. I tried to clean them and on recordings that were perfectly clean on my headphones the lower frequency artifacts were not subtile on my main speakers.
After knowing where they are i barely heard them on my headphones but they were there. So some things even come easier on speakers for me.
Edit: I once had such a sample, beneeth others, in Massive Attacks - Angel. I don´t have it around so i can´t give the exact position.
Sometimes I wonder...
... if a codec (name your favorite here, I have mine) already performs transparently at a lower bitrate...
... then why encode at a higher bitrate?
That provides an extra layer of psychologic protection for those who worry excessively about transparency and problem samples wreaking havoc on said transparency.
The vast majority of my 45000+ track collection in foobar is mpc. In the last 3 years or so it's proven *to me* to be excellent - I can positively ABX maybe 2 tunes at xtreme (the aerosol noise in 'Housewife' by Dr Dre comes to mind) but i've never had to worry about the quality - it just 'works'.
My desktop at home is Windows, but the media pc in the lounge runs Linux. When installing FC5 onto the latter with mythtv (which can rip and encode to anything but with a nice TV style gui) I was dithering over whether to switch codecs for my new rips. I was looking at AAC and Vorbis but the different compiles and variants put me off.
Give me a recent Musepack encoder and my encodes sound good. That's why I still use it. I'm not saying it's the best (though it's certainly up there for my needs) but it's the best and easiest option I have.
I would love to see a SV8, followed by a proper listening test of all the modern codecs.
That provides an extra layer of psychologic protection for those who worry excessively about transparency and problem samples wreaking havoc on said transparency.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=379255"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
LOL if I worry about transparency I'll go lossless.
No, but seriously.
Suppose I use a codec "Z" (letter chosen to hopefully not denote any known lossy codec) which achieves transparency at level "50" out of "100", giving a bitrate of ... let's say 100 kbps.
If I need to be more sure of transparency, then I can bump up the setting to level "60", giving a bitrate of 110 kbps.
Now let's say there's another codec called "W" (again, hopefully not denoting any known lossy codec) that achieves transparency at level "Q" out of "Z", giving a bitrate of ... let's say 120 kbps. The next quality level is "R" at 130 kbps.
Why should I use "W" at level "R" instead of "Z" at level "60"?
You lost me at variable "Q."
Seriously, that does make sense...format bias comes into play as well. But indeed there's no reason to bother with "W" and throw away bits if ABXing has shown you've reached perpetual transparency at a lower bitrate with codec "Z."
lol!
when I wrote this at 4th of April, kwanbis repeated afterwards his post showing 2 different multiformat tests to compare...........
weird...
April jokes ?
I knew (and posted) during the prediscussion of the latest 128k multiformat test, that cross-test-references are necessary and interesting in general,
and that without this, sooner or later somebody will come and connect the old tests (eg. with mpc versions) and the new test (eg. without mpc), to show "somewhat", haha, a comparison between mpc measured/ranked in old tests to compare the old "value" with formats in new tests and their new "values".
You made my day !
lol!
when I wrote this at 4th of April, kwanbis repeated afterwards his post showing 2 different multiformat tests to compare...........
weird...
April jokes ?
I knew (and posted) during the prediscussion of the latest 128k multiformat test, that cross-test-references are necessary and interesting in general,
and that without this, sooner or later somebody will come and connect the old tests (eg. with mpc versions) and the new test (eg. without mpc), to show "somewhat", haha, a comparison between mpc measured/ranked in old tests to compare the old "value" with formats in new tests and their new "values".
You made my day !
So, you're not aware that results can be extrapolated between tests?
when I wrote this at 4th of April, kwanbis repeated afterwards his post showing 2 different multiformat tests to compare...........
as far as i understand, or my logic understands, the only problem with doing so, was
1) diferent samples
2) diferent people
but, if we consider that
1) they were considered problem samples
2) statistically, it shouldnt matter
the extrapolation of the test should be ok, as it is related to the perception of a encoded file quality against an original.
Sometimes I wonder...
... if a codec (name your favorite here, I have mine) already performs transparently at a lower bitrate...
... then why encode at a higher bitrate?
OK, I'm only relatively new here, but I'd like to offer two answers to the question posed by
pepoluan. I'f I'm talking rubbish then I'd be very grateful if a more knowledgeable / experienced HA member could point out my errors.
Firstly, transparency isn't just a function of how good your ears are. It's also affected by how good your equipment is. If you upgrade your equipment, music that previously sounded transparent might no longer sound transparent. But if you encode at a higher bitrate than you might have thought necessary, you have a bit of insurance in that direction.
Secondly, if you want to transcode down to a lower bitrate (e.g. to use on a DAP) then a higher bitrate to start with will hopefully give a better end result.
So for example I tend to encode music to MP3 using LAME -V0. Given the quality of my audio equipment, and the fact that I don't often just sit and listen carefully to music, I strongly suspect -V2 would be transparent to me for most if not all practical purposes. (I haven't done any serious listening tests to confirm this, and I can't be bothered to. Life's too short.) But I can afford the extra 25% storage space required by -V0, and that reassures me that next time I do want to listen hard to something I won't be bothered by compression artefacts. Also, when I want to transcode down to -V5 for use on my Walkman, I expect to get better-sounding results transcoding down from -V0 than from -V2. (Again, I haven't tested this and I don't want to test it.)
Basically that extra 25% storage space buys me a form of insurance. Does this make any sense at all?
It makes some sense, only that when V2 is clearly stuffing up then V0 is equally useless. On small differences V0 might be a little better. I've have numerous samples that had problems with v5 and often v4 or v3 made little difference. I've had one that was abxable at V2, not at V1, yet abaxable again at V0 ! - even one that v5 was better than V4.
I am now sure is that when the psymodel is doing funny things then quality isn't increasing and the bits are wasted. MPC is better but its still the same in principle. The non-perceptuals like wavpack lossy and Optimfrog DS don't have this problem at all - though bitrate is more expensive.
Firstly, transparency isn't just a function of how good your ears are. It's also affected by how good your equipment is. If you upgrade your equipment, music that previously sounded transparent might no longer sound transparent. But if you encode at a higher bitrate than you might have thought necessary, you have a bit of insurance in that direction.
Well, it actually boils down to your ears then whether you can hear the difference between the lossy and the lossless encoded file. The equipment only helps.
But anyways, of course I am talking about same equipment here. It is absolutely pointless trying to compare my iPaq2210 output (fed into an amp & speaker) with my desktop computer output...
Secondly, if you want to transcode down to a lower bitrate (e.g. to use on a DAP) then a higher bitrate to start with will hopefully give a better end result.
Repeat after me: Transcoding from lossy to lossy - bad. Transcode from lossless to lossy - good.
No,
extrapolation of those tests (not only of those, please study some theory of experimentals) is only funny and not scientific,
not worth being posted.
With all the scientific/theoretical and experimental approaches of HA, this "extrapolation" is not possible.
You could "extrapolate" old tests with new tests, if you would have included the "comparable anchor format", ie. a tested encoder of an old test together with the new test probants.
Then you could say, that eg. 4.7 rating of new test matches 4.5 rating of old test or whatever, and to watch, how a relative ranking of newer formats has developed towards older formats/encoders.
Please reread my posts during the preparation of the 128k multiformat test, I asked for including some "comparable anchor" to the new test, but the conductors haven't taken this idea.
There wasn't said (neither by kwanbis, nor by Roberto), that comparable anchor is not necessary to compare new with old test, due to this or that fact or argument, reason.
So, to come now with a comparison between old and new tests, reveals, that those guys, who already creeped into mpc threads in past, to argue against mpc, when mpc had still the crown alone, are continuing now with their propaganda. Sorry, fitting together those old and new tests graphs, sounds like cheap marketing.
No,
extrapolation of those tests (not only of those, please study some theory of experimentals) is only funny and not scientific,
not worth being posted.
With all the scientific/theoretical and experimental approaches of HA, this "extrapolation" is not possible.
It is perfectly possible, and has been done several times before. The anchor indeed helps, but if any, my tests show that rankings have been consistent to quality across tests no matter if you use an anchor as reference or not.
You are just nitpicking here. If you want to seriously nitpick, you could determine that tests could only be compared ("extrapolated") if you used at least one encoder in common, the same listeners, the same samples, and the same conditions. That's not only unfeasible, that is impossible, as your hearing isn't perfectly the same day after day, and unmeasurable factors like mood and tiredness play a very important role in your testing habilities.
We are trying to compromise here for the sake of information.
I'm not a statistics wizard but I don't think user is nitpicking. I really think that having different anchors makes extrapolation much harder than not having the same listeners, same samples and same conditions, if these are representative of real world scenario in both tests.
Maybe extrapolation could be done, but not as slightly as just putting both graphics side by side.
You are just nitpicking here. If you want to seriously nitpick, you could determine that tests could only be compared ("extrapolated") if you used at least one encoder in common, the same listeners, the same samples, and the same conditions. That's not only unfeasible, that is impossible, as your hearing isn't perfectly the same day after day, and unmeasurable factors like mood and tiredness play a very important role in your testing habilities.
We are trying to compromise here for the sake of information.
Thank you,
you have written down, why cross comparisons (with absolute differences from 4.x to 4.y) between tests are difficult till impossible without my proposed "comparable anchor", which would allow a relative ranking of formats between old and new tests with careful interpretation.
It is obvious, who nitpicks.
Information based on pseudo-scientific-looking graph? At least, now we read, that the goal of this obscure graph should be "information"
Yellow press compromises its "information" sometimes, too. Not a serious way to inform people?
Thank you,
you have written down, why cross comparisons (with absolute differences from 4.x to 4.y) between tests are difficult till impossible without my proposed "comparable anchor"
Nope, I said it would be difficult till impossible if one nitpicked as bad as you do. Don't try to distort what I said.
Information based on pseudo-scientific-looking graph?
Again, if you want to nitpick so badly (as you obviously do), even my tests were pseudo-scientific, as they weren't formally conduced as per the ITU guidelines.
So, feel free to ignore all my tests and forget these things happened. Have a nice day.
Dear friend,
you have conducted tests as conductor.
^^that's nitpicking
Logic tells about nitpicking here.
See, what
m0rbidini Posted Yesterday, 06:29 PM :
I'm not a statistics wizard but I don't think user is nitpicking. I really think that having different anchors makes extrapolation much harder than not having the same listeners, same samples and same conditions, if these are representative of real world scenario in both tests.
Maybe extrapolation could be done, but not as slightly as just putting both graphics side by side.
Still, even the listening tests done rjamorim do not justify the comment that "other formats are struggling to reach the same quality". MPC already tied with Vorbis and QT AAC back in 2003 at 128 kbps. And logic suggests that at higher bitrates, for most people, differences between formats will become smaller, not bigger.
So what point are you actually trying to defend?
No,
extrapolation of those tests (not only of those, please study some theory of experimentals) is only funny and not scientific,
not worth being posted.
With all the scientific/theoretical and experimental approaches of HA, this "extrapolation" is not possible.
It is perfectly possible, and has been done several times before. The anchor indeed helps, but if any, my tests show that rankings have been consistent to quality across tests no matter if you use an anchor as reference or not.
You are just nitpicking here. If you want to seriously nitpick, you could determine that tests could only be compared ("extrapolated") if you used at least one encoder in common, the same listeners, the same samples, and the same conditions. That's not only unfeasible, that is impossible, as your hearing isn't perfectly the same day after day, and unmeasurable factors like mood and tiredness play a very important role in your testing habilities.
We are trying to compromise here for the sake of information.
Well, you've lost me there. Where have your tests shown this? (That's a request for information, not a rhetorical remark)
Extrapolating results between two tests with any common anchor looks pretty hazy to me, and it's not something I'd accept as solid
in any way without some strong indication that in the given circumstances it's a valid compromise to make.
No,
extrapolation of those tests (not only of those, please study some theory of experimentals) is only funny and not scientific,
not worth being posted.
With all the scientific/theoretical and experimental approaches of HA, this "extrapolation" is not possible.
You could "extrapolate" old tests with new tests, if you would have included the "comparable anchor format", ie. a tested encoder of an old test together with the new test probants.
Then you could say, that eg. 4.7 rating of new test matches 4.5 rating of old test or whatever, and to watch, how a relative ranking of newer formats has developed towards older formats/encoders.
I'm sorry, but I know of no formal proof that this or that extrapolation is a valid one and this or that one isn't. If you're looking for black and white, there won't be any.
The conditions for an extrapolation to be
valid are pretty much the same that are required for the test itself to be
valid. There must not be a way to show how it could, in a manner that has a reasonable likelihood of occuring, lead to wrong results. More abstractly and generally, what determines the goodness of a test is whether the results will lead to consistent improvement. And more specifically again: a test that is not solid wouldn't be able to lead to improvement at some point, or at the very least, it can be shown that this would happen.
What people will consider a valid test is also based on the above; but the above is not a black and white issue: the likelyhood the results could get flawed can vary, and the cirumstances under which it can happen, could too. By clearly stating the methodology, you allow everyone to make a decision for himself whether they consider the flaws important or not. If you use a good methodology, most people will consider that is not the case, and your results will be "accepted".
I wrote the above directly concerning this thread, but if you think about it, it's exactly the same what happens in science. If you call it unscientific and funny, you are wrong.
In a discussion, it's valid not to accept a conclusion, extrapolation or test results. But be aware that any data is still better than no data at all (and that's something different from "data so invalid you could as well toss a coin"). Waiving a result because of a minor issue is something you can do, but unless you're willing to come up with some results of your own, don't expect people to take you very seriously.
I'd like to see rjamorim's data and reasoning that leads him to believe an extrapolation would be valid. If we see it, we can think about what the flaws could be, how likely they are, and consequently, how much attention this extrapolation should get.
For me, its like a race, you compare lap times of race 1 to the one in race 20, and see that racer X, of race 20, had a better time than racer H on race 1, so racer 20 gets the "record lap". But:
1) Diferent racers
2) Diferent cars
3) Diferent climate
Still nobody argues about it. As roberto said (ups, we agree once more), you can compare, if you want to be picky, you probably would find some statistic problem, as with everything done in life. I can argue that you must do 100% of the world population, or the test have no meaning.
People subjetivelly heard some samples, and decided to give MPC 4.47, against the originals. Then another group of people did the same, and give 4.74 to iTunes AAC, again, against the originals.
EDIT: If both groups where statistical representations of the universe, universe = universe, so we can assume the same group did the test.
As roberto said (ups, we agree once more), you can compare, if you want to be picky, you probably would find some statistic problem, as with everything done in life. I can argue that you must do 100% of the world population, or the test have no meaning.
I'm sorry, but this is a stupid comparison, because the last sentence is wrong, unless you have some evidence that statistical sampling theory is fatally flawed.
Thanks Garf for questioning, what rjamorim leads to the opinion, that putting both graphics side by side could be a valid extrapolation.
If he would have continued defending this assumption, I'd asked it myself.
As a long time is between those listening tests,
different samples,
different encoders (ie. no anchor encoder),
different people,
maybe same people who aged during both tests,
it is very unlikely to be able to compare one encoders' absolute ranking ("4.x") of the old test with other encoders' ranking ("4.y") at another test like done in that side-by-side-graph.
morbidini wrote :
Maybe extrapolation could be done, but not as slightly as just putting both graphics side by side.
This could not have been written better.
Even kwanbis wrote at Apr 2 2006, 03:02 AM Post #12 to his (imo) unlucky 2-graph-comparison :
it could be argued that diferent samples were used ... even diferent people probably submited results ... anyway ....
edit addon:
hm, some post above kwanbis compared statistical listening tests with race laps and measuring times.
hmhm.
Any comments (necessary)?
The point of abx and ABC/HR here has been and is, that the results are valid for the samples, the tested encoders, tested people, the test situation as such, and not more.
The public multiformat tests with a bigger group of testers mirrors the ranking of general people's impression, but only focussed on the actual test (conditions).
I'm sorry, but this is a stupid comparison, because the last sentence is wrong, unless you have some evidence that statistical sampling theory is fatally flawed.
well, statistics have proven wrong many times. Thats why, for example, nobody can predict anything 100% with statistics.
As a long time is between those listening tests,
different samples,
different encoders (ie. no anchor encoder),
different people,
maybe same people who aged during both tests,
Some of these don't matter at all (different people for example), some may not matter, some may matter a lot.
My corncern is that I believe people tend to rate the encoders more against each other, rather than against the ratings scale itself ("Perceptual but not annoying" etc). I know that I myself have this tendency, and I have participated in the tests.
*BUT* transparency is a hard anchor, since it's always 5.0 in any test. This may be enough to anchor the high bitrate tests together.
I'd just like to see more data so I can reach my own conclusion.
I'm sorry, but this is a stupid comparison, because the last sentence is wrong, unless you have some evidence that statistical sampling theory is fatally flawed.
well, statistics have proven wrong many times. Thats why, for example, nobody can predict anything 100% with statistics.
Statistics proven wrong? Eh?
If you say something is true with 95% confidence, you know you will be wrong 5% of the time.
How can you prove that wrong? As I already asked, are you going to rewrite mathematics?
Statistical sampling is a known method, for which we know the pitfalls and accuracy very well. It tells us we don't need to ask the entire population of the world something in order to make a statement about it. You haven't come one inch closer to supporting your original entirely wrong statement, and you won't ever get an inch closer, either.
I'm sorry, but this is a stupid comparison, because the last sentence is wrong, unless you have some evidence that statistical sampling theory is fatally flawed.
well, statistics have proven wrong many times. Thats why, for example, nobody can predict anything 100% with statistics.
err,
1st kwanbis takes the results of statistics, ie. the 2 graphs, mixes them up,
and now he questions the principles of maths & HA?
just a hint: statistics is not about predicting something with 100%,
but about measuring something with some safety of measuring correct and not guessing.
ie. probability of a percentage lower than 100%.
Statistics hasn't been proven wrong.
Maybe certain test setups and used statistics and the interpretations were flawed.
(Like it looks here with high probability to put those 2 graphs side by side to demonstrate whatever. The 2 single graphs are not questioned (by me or HA or anybody with sense), but the putting side-by-side.)
I'd like to see rjamorim's data and reasoning that leads him to believe an extrapolation would be valid. If we see it, we can think about what the flaws could be, how likely they are, and consequently, how much attention this extrapolation should get.
I agree with this part. rjamorim was fast writing "So, you're not aware that results can be extrapolated between tests?" as if it was a given. My objection, however, is how this "extrapolation" (if you can call it that) is being made without any kind of explication, just by overlapping the ratings graphics.
The conditions for an extrapolation to be valid are pretty much the same that are required for the test itself to be valid.
Can't you can have two perfectly valid tests and not be able to do a simple extrapolation between them (like the one being tried here)? Aren't there more conditions, like having a valid way to relate the different anchors?
The conditions for an extrapolation to be valid are pretty much the same that are required for the test itself to be valid.
Can't you can have two perfectly valid tests and not be able to do a simple extrapolation between them (like the one being tried here)? Aren't there more conditions, like having a valid way to relate the different anchors?
Yes, of course. I perhaps didn't explain myself clearly there. I was talking about the conditions for a method of extrapolation to be valid, in the scientific sense; see the following sentence for example. I don't mean the validity of the test is linked to the validity of an extrapolation (except in the obvious way that it would be hard to make a valid extrapolation out of an invalid test ). Just that the way of determining whether it is is the same.
*BUT* transparency is a hard anchor, since it's always 5.0 in any test. This may be enough to anchor the high bitrate tests together.
that is exactly what i reasoned.
Statistics proven wrong? Eh?
If you say something is true with 95% confidence, you know you will be wrong 5% of the time.
How can you prove that wrong? As I already asked, are you going to rewrite mathematics?
i have heard many reports that "statistically prove" that X event would happend, then to reallity show otherwise. I'm sure that statistcs is the less "exact" of all exact scienses. I'm not going to rewrite, but i won't be surprised that somebody in the future does. What i tried to say, is that statistics are a diferent kind of "exact sciences", where 1+1 is 2, with 100% confidence. As one already questioned, even the number of samples/results couldn't be statistically valid.
1st kwanbis takes the results of statistics, ie. the 2 graphs, mixes them up,
and now he questions the principles of maths & HA?
just a hint: statistics is not about predicting something with 100%,
but about measuring something with some safety of measuring correct and not guessing.
ie. probability of a percentage lower than 100%.
Statistics hasn't been proven wrong.
i'm not questioning anything, i'm just telling facts. Yeah, right, you can allways say with 99% of confidence, and you could allways have the 1% to cover your back. Thats why the world is so unpredictable. And statistics is a totally diferent type of maths, and i havent questioned HA principles.
Maybe certain test setups and used statistics and the interpretations were flawed.
(Like it looks here with high probability to put those 2 graphs side by side to demonstrate whatever. The 2 single graphs are not questioned (by me or HA or anybody with sense), but the putting side-by-side.)
already boring. As somebody already said, "*BUT* transparency is a hard anchor, since it's always 5.0 in any test. This may be enough to anchor the high bitrate tests together."
I do question, that transparency = 5.0 is sufficient as anchor to make cross-test-comparisons like tried here.
The perceived differences are too subtle. 4.5 , 4.7, +- the usual statistical margins.
High bitrate = 128k tests ?
hmm funny how this thread is continuing, sorry for all the people that had to bash me, but I only have discovered it sorry for being new to the mpc format )o:
What is really bad about MPC is that before 2 years the answer was: yes, it is cleary best and possibly the best.
Now it's supremacy even in quality is arguable. That's the problem, it didnt evolve.
I loved this encoder, but now I dont see a reason using it.
I think that for this fast moving world its already dead
What is really bad about MPC is that before 2 years the answer was: yes, it is cleary best and possibly the best.
Now it's supremacy even in quality is arguable. That's the problem, it didnt evolve.
I loved this encoder, but now I dont see a reason using it.
I think that for this fast moving world its already dead
I hate to beat a dead horse... but... I hate even more to see logical inconsistencies.
MPC achieved near-lossless quality at standard settings when all other encoders were still trying to improve their psychoacoustic models. MP3 has been hacked to death by the LAME developers because of fundamental structural deficiencies in the format, so it needed years to evolve to its current state. MPC didn't need to improve since it already was the lossy benchmark, in both speed and quality.
But still, even in 2007, encoding an album to MPC Standard takes less time than to LAME -V2 --vbr-new. It still is the best lossy archival encoder imo. Also, I positively ABX'ed tracks back 5 years ago between MPC Extreme and LAME MP3 320kbps CBR. So unless LAME has been tuning 320 CBR all these years as well, the MP3 format itself is still not good enough.
And from what I saw on the 128kbps listening tests, MPC still won over LAME. LAME has been trying for years to try to beat the other codecs at low bitrates while MPC development pretty much stood still and no tuning was going on, so where is the supremacy?
Also, we have the tests for the best portable encoder, but where are the tests for best lossy archival encoder? We'd have a fun time if we threw in a few lossless codecs in there too and really make some people angry.
People saying "nobody says anything about this thing anymore so this thing must not be good" have it backwards. When nobody complains, it means it just works. If you own a car and you're always having to talk about this or that it usually means your car sucks. I don't want to have to reevalute my encoder settings every few years. Constantly bickering to faceless nobodies on the Internet about, "do you hear that artifact?" "How can we improve it?" "What switches should I change?" That's why I switched to MPC years back and stopped caring about all this MP3 tuning business.
I'm glad MP3 has gained speed and more transparency at lower bitrates. I'll definitely use the "-V5 --vbr-new --athaa-sensitivity 1" for transcoding for portable use. But I'll be damned if I'm turning my entire library over into LAME V2 or even V0 just so I can do the whole dance again when the next version comes out after someone puts in more hacks.
Also, I positively ABX'ed tracks back 5 years ago between MPC Extreme and LAME MP3 320kbps CBR. So unless LAME has been tuning 320 CBR all these years as well, the MP3 format itself is still not good enough.
This makes no sense. You could hear a difference between two lossy encodings, and this proves that one is good and the other bad? Don't you need to ABX each of them against the original?
Also, if I remember correctly, five years ago -b 320 was not equivalent to --preset insane. Which did you use, and which version of LAME? Maybe your 320kbps cbr files were not as good as is currently possible. I'm not saying that MPC isn't superior to MP3 (it probably is), but I just think that you are selling MP3 a little short.
What is really bad about MPC is that before 2 years the answer was: yes, it is cleary best and possibly the best.
Now it's supremacy even in quality is arguable. That's the problem, it didnt evolve.
I loved this encoder, but now I dont see a reason using it.
I think that for this fast moving world its already dead
But still, even in 2007, encoding an album to MPC Standard takes less time than to LAME -V2 --vbr-new. It still is the best lossy archival encoder imo. Also, I positively ABX'ed tracks back 5 years ago between MPC Extreme and LAME MP3 320kbps CBR. So unless LAME has been tuning 320 CBR all these years as well, the MP3 format itself is still not good enough.
And from what I saw on the 128kbps listening tests, MPC still won over LAME. LAME has been trying for years to try to beat the other codecs at low bitrates while MPC development pretty much stood still and no tuning was going on, so where is the supremacy?
Also, we have the tests for the best portable encoder, but where are the tests for best lossy archival encoder? We'd have a fun time if we threw in a few lossless codecs in there too and really make some people angry.
I'm glad MP3 has gained speed and more transparency at lower bitrates. I'll definitely use the "-V5 --vbr-new --athaa-sensitivity 1" for transcoding for portable use. But I'll be damned if I'm turning my entire library over into LAME V2 or even V0 just so I can do the whole dance again when the next version comes out after someone puts in more hacks.
People don't care / take 'lossy archival' seriously. Those who do went to lossless compression and others realised that total transparency in all conditions is not practicaly achievable [with normal bitrate] so they stuck with mp3 and enjoy life. They can get good quality even at V5. There are also abxable mpc samples where mp3 does better FYI. MP3 hacks? the latest versions use a highly tuned vbr quality system from 9~0. You know MPC is also hacks: seeking, Xlevel etc. Don't pick on MP3 because its easy and popular on some ripping scenes. Anyway Vorbis and AAC don't have mp3 limits and achieve better all round performance than mpc.
Regarding MPC transcoding to V5: Its a mistake and a waste of time IMO. You can use -V3 and even -V4 and get very good quality on a majority of music for both Hi-Fi and portables and never transcode again. Ask yourself - what is this all for ?
people saying "nobody says anything about this thing anymore so this thing must not be good" have it backwards. When nobody complains, it means it just works. If you own a car and you're always having to talk about this or that it usually means your car sucks. I don't want to have to reevalute my encoder settings every few years. Constantly bickering to faceless nobodies on the Internet about, "do you hear that artifact?" "How can we improve it?" "What switches should I change?" That's why I switched to MPC years back and stopped caring about all this MP3 tuning business.
'nobody says anything' = Wrong . There have been complaints about various issues that have been largely dismissed by the 'other' forum, even calling us trolls, calling extensive abx tests as 'objectionable methods', saying our tests are nothing because of easy to encode samples, estimating a 'true transparency threshold for modern codecs' as 220~245 k - something that i've never heard of from any developer. When you think about it , it makes sense: You don't have to do nothing on quality front, let others catch up and avoid the heat by encouraging 250 k encodings from your userbase. All other developers take issues at 180k seriously even Klemm and Bushel when they were still active. All others codecs have seen quality development since 2003: mp3, aac, vorbis and wavpack lossy.
As for bickering, Its a part of any project in active developement - you just get that like it or not.
HA is development driven and musepack's psymodel improvements have been dormant for YEARS.
the format WILL stay around forever thanks to geeks (open licenses and decoding support).
SV8 will address many of the shortcomings of SV7 - it's all about how the format is further developed that will address it's place on the codec totem pole.
it's still (and always will be) a great codec and it's perfect for what i need/want/use/etc. so i keep using it. (hello rockbox!)
later
I just noticed in the polls that more people use mpc than mp3!
Bearing in mind that I know nothing about mpc, could anyone explain the benefits over mp3?
I use alt-preset extreme... does anyone recommend I upgrade to mpc?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=249769"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
1) I don't recommend it too much work, very tiny benefit
2) yes, at the given bitrate mpc reach better quality than mp3
3) if you need better quality than mp3, stick with ogg instead, I can't tell if it's better than mpc, but at least much more supported and there is develompent still going into it
Yes , I agree with your point .
The support of MPC is a big problem..
lol... you signed up to say that?