Skip to main content

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Musepack in 2020 (Read 4333 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Musepack in 2020

Reply #25
@synclagz : Don't use the reencoding test as a gauge for the source encoders.
Such a test is in regards to the interaction of two codecs, and just like reencoding mp3 to mp3 many times is worse than mp3 to mp4,  that does not make the initial mp3 worse than the mp4, but rather the interaction of mp3 with an mp3 to be bad.

Re: Musepack in 2020

Reply #26

It's not really transparent by default, I've found it needs at least 2 workarounds:
1) need to adjust ATH per track using option ltq_gain based on track loudness (not really viable to do by hand, because each track needs a different value, so you'd need to script that; I wrote it already btw, can upload if someone's interested), otherwise it will delete too much stuff from very quiet tracks
2) it's easily ABXable on a "killer" sample "Fighter_Beat_Loop" even at maximum quality preset (and this sample sounds quite similar to sounds which can be found in some music genres), and I've found only 1 way to work around that (add `--nmt 18` option) which also raises bitrate quite a lot, making it harder to say it's competitive with modern codecs)
 
 


magicgoose, as you username is highlighted on the Musepack forum lately as their latest user addition, I wonder if you came across this post by Frank Klemm from which I quote the following as, IMO, fits the bill perfectly regarding your own adjusting of Musepack's quality settings:

Quote
Simply, there's usually a very high chance that using --quality 6 for example would give you better quality at a similar average bitrate to the one you got with the manually "tweaked" --quality 5.
 
 

That at least makes sense to me as I've been a relatively happy bunny with --quality 6 for the times (non electronic music mainly) I'm not using Wavpack hybrid.
Listen to the music, not the media it's on.
Wavpack hybrid -hb4.3x4

Re: Musepack in 2020

Reply #27
According to this reencoding listening test
https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php?topic=119424.0

Enola sample was not transparent even at musepack Q8 setting, so probably need Q9 or 10 to mitigate this issue.
However, I'm not sure if this artifact, that guruboolez noticed, is introduced by musepack as source or opus at 64k.


Could be Opus since your going from a transform codec to a subband one. It can't reproduce the other stuff without getting confused but when musepack was the source never had issues doing transcodes to other codecs?.

Got locked out on a password i didn't remember. :/

Re: Musepack in 2020

Reply #28
According to this reencoding listening test
https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php?topic=119424.0

Enola sample was not transparent even at musepack Q8 setting, so probably need Q9 or 10 to mitigate this issue.
However, I'm not sure if this artifact, that guruboolez noticed, is introduced by musepack as source or opus at 64k.


Could be Opus since your going from a transform codec to a subband one. It can't reproduce the other stuff without getting confused but when musepack was the source never had issues doing transcodes to other codecs?.


So you have good experience in transcoding from musepack to other codecs? Which Musepack setting you use?
WavPack v5.4 -b450hh

Re: Musepack in 2020

Reply #29
According to this reencoding listening test
https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php?topic=119424.0

Enola sample was not transparent even at musepack Q8 setting, so probably need Q9 or 10 to mitigate this issue.
However, I'm not sure if this artifact, that guruboolez noticed, is introduced by musepack as source or opus at 64k.


Could be Opus since your going from a transform codec to a subband one. It can't reproduce the other stuff without getting confused but when musepack was the source never had issues doing transcodes to other codecs?.


So you have good experience in transcoding from musepack to other codecs? Which Musepack setting you use?

Q10

 

Re: Musepack in 2020

Reply #30
According to this reencoding listening test
https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php?topic=119424.0

Enola sample was not transparent even at musepack Q8 setting, so probably need Q9 or 10 to mitigate this issue.
However, I'm not sure if this artifact, that guruboolez noticed, is introduced by musepack as source or opus at 64k.


Could be Opus since your going from a transform codec to a subband one. It can't reproduce the other stuff without getting confused but when musepack was the source never had issues doing transcodes to other codecs?.


So you have good experience in transcoding from musepack to other codecs? Which Musepack setting you use?

Q10

How Q10 handles critical samples? Have you tried to ABX any of them?
WavPack v5.4 -b450hh

 
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2021