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: Quality Of Mp3 -> Mpc Trascode (Read 9178 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Quality Of Mp3 -> Mpc Trascode

Reply #25 –
Quote
You can add (more) gapless playback if I was to use tags in the mp3's.


If no hack is used, then the mp3 format is incapable of flawless gapless playback. This has nothing to do with tags (your output plugging should buffer enough sound to compensate for the decoder's seek time), but the way information is stored in an mp3. To date there is no way to fix this afterwards, and so when you are transcoding, the mpc files will inherit
the flawed gaps.

I don't think that you will benefit from the increased decoding speed. How often will you want to decode in more than realtime? If you want to burn a CD, your burning software will most likely support on-the-fly mp3 decoding. You would even save time if you kept the mp3s. Disk space is an argument I find acceptable, but religion? If you are religiously using mpc then your 1. commandment should be: "Thou shalt not sacrifice quality for anything!" I do not completely disagree with your idea, but I find your motives questionable. If the stuff you have collected is so rare and valuable, then I would keep it in the best shape possible, even if transcoding is less evil than others will tell you. If you do not treasure it as much, then just go for it and enjoy a few more GBs of disk space.

Quote
This ruins the initial idea of Andree Buschmann to have a format without a bunch of crappy encoders so the chance is high to get a high quality copy of a CD title when downloading a file from internet


If you download a file labeled "Bootleg" and which is <100 kbps you shouldn't be expecting hifi quality. He never said he would use it on his regular music collection or distribute his transcoded files over the Internet. The nice thing about mpc is, that it needs very few bytes to transparently represent crappy input data. So why not make use of it? If you can live with the quality of the bootlegged recording, you can probably also live with the quality of an mp3 -> mpc transcode.

Seems like people here are too scared to ask questions about transcoding because they fear to be flamed! I'd rather hear those questions and try to come up with a halfway decent solution than having people transcode "in the dark" and produce totally unacceptable results.

edit: hopefully this is the last time I edit this thing.. I lost half the post while I was writing due to my own incompetence. I forgot to fill up some holes.
 

Quality Of Mp3 -> Mpc Trascode

Reply #26 –
Quote
Quote
You can add (more) gapless playback if I was to use tags in the mp3's.


If no hack is used, then the mp3 format is incapable of flawless gapless playback. This has nothing to do with tags (your output plugging should buffer enough sound to compensate for the decoder's seek time), but the way information is stored in an mp3. To date there is no way to fix this afterwards, and so when you are transcoding, the mpc files will inherit
the flawed gaps.

Id3v2-tags do make gapless playback harder.
If things haven't changed id3v2-tags are read as invalid data and silence are added.

That's why I said "more".