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: MPC Problem Samples (Read 10176 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

MPC Problem Samples

Reply #25 –
Quote
Most of the few artefacts occuring with mpc, vanish, if you go from q5, 6 to q7, and especially at q8.
Just read some posts of Guruboolez, please.

Already done this, long ago. If you read a bit more from him, you'll see that he recommends -q6.

Quote
And yes, a lot people are satisfied by q6 eg., because listening abilities are distributed by a Gaussian (bell-like-) curve, distribution.

This is a very cheap excuse. When mpc artifacts, it's because of a mistake made inside the psychoacoustic model. It has little to do with the setting being too low for your hearing capabilities. The recent few samples which fail at all quality settings show this. Also, the 99+ % of samples having no problem, show this.

Quote
"So, give everybody the freedom to encode with preferred setting."

"Well, perhaps a matter of taste and personal view,
everybody is free to decide, what he wants to do, what he wants to get."

Well, yes, everyone has the freedom to choose their setting. So it's dumb to force them to -q7 minimal.

Quote
So, please, don't make a religion or dictate out of the question whether q5, q6 or q7 should be preferred.
I assume, that most people out there, who know about mpc, have enough knowledge, brain-power, to decide themselves, what they need, want, use.

Same here - example: you decide that -q5 is enough for this piece of music, you use -q6 for transcoding margin. Even though carefully ripped and encoded in the best lossy format using very good settings, your file is not *-compliant. THAT is the problem.


MOD:* No links to or names of ripping groups please.

MPC Problem Samples

Reply #26 –
"" Well, yes, everyone has the freedom to choose their setting. So it's dumb to force them to -q7 minimal. ""




Well, nobody is forced to anything ?

Who forces you to rip according to * standard, if you don't like it ?

Who forces you to rip according to * standard, if you don't like it ?




Guruboolez recommends q6 probably for the majority of people, himself he uses higher setting, if I recall correctly.






"" This is a very cheap excuse. When mpc artifacts, it's because of a mistake made inside the psychoacoustic model. It has little to do with the setting being too low for your hearing capabilities. The recent few samples which fail at all quality settings show this. Also, the 99+ % of samples having no problem, show this. ""



No, by higher q setting artefacts may vanish, it depends on the type of artefact.
Those few, which don't vanish at even q8, are very very rare.






Then (which i have forgotten to mention as reason in previous post):

* MPC -> High quality mp3 encoding, for HiFi-DVD/MP3-player,
Transcoding. --> you need safety margin.


* Surround content of music, for Logic7 / DPL2 decoding:
This content is listenable better saved in mpc at higher --ms setting, that is either q5 --ms 15 (still less bitrate than q6, but better sound !), or q7 (which uses --ms 13).








"" Same here - example: you decide that -q5 is enough for this piece of music, you use -q6 for transcoding margin. Even though carefully ripped and encoded in the best lossy format using very good settings, your file is not *-compliant. THAT is the problem.  ""


Why do you have a problem with *-compliance ?
Do, what you like, like everybody.


MOD:* No links to or names of ripping groups please.

MPC Problem Samples

Reply #27 –
About * and q7:
Imagine the following situation: An ABX tester sits in front of his computer/stereo equipment, wearing above standard headphones with a good isolation from environment sounds. His eyes are closed to increase his concentration. Then he hears a sample, smaller than a second, which he thinks he can distinguish from the original at q5/6, but he isn't all too sure and must hear it several times.

This is reality for 99.9% of non-artificial (just created to produce artifacts in lossy encoders) problem samples.


Imagine another situation:
A *-Freak who has never done ABX tests, but who has read somewhere that * is cool and the only way to go for quality without compromises (lossy means compromise) enters a room where q5/q6 music is playing on a good 5.1/stereo equipment. His hearing skill may be above average and after one song he is absolutely sure that this must be q5/q6 because of all the artifacts.

IMO, this is pure fiction for 99.9% of non-artificial samples.

MOD:* No links to or names of ripping groups please.

MPC Problem Samples

Reply #28 –
Quote
Already done this, long ago. If you read a bit more from him, you'll see that he recommends -q6.


I recommand nothing. At least, not on HA board.
I've just found some cases, on special listening conditions, where mpc -q5, -q6, -q7... isn't totally transparent. That's all. If you listen to harpsichord, and listen to the same second hundred times, then mpc --extreme shouldn't be the best choice. 

The most interesting thing is maybe that, after one year with mpc, I can hear problems (and ABX them) I couldn't hear one year ago. Same thing with --alt-preset standard : I can hear pre-echo on regular piano music. But I wasn't able to perform a valid ABX test on it (or simply find short samples) last year ; I can do it now. Evolution of hearing.


P.S. I switched from --extreme to --insane preset last summer.
P.S. (2) : the only recommandation I have is to use WinABX or ABC/HR, and to be careful in future.

MPC Problem Samples

Reply #29 –
Quote
Most of the few artefacts occuring with mpc, vanish, if you go from q5, 6 to q7, and especially at q8.

Actually, if you look at nearly all the recently discovered problem samples, they still artifact even at q7 for quite a number of people. Just search around the forum (see also the links pointed out in this thread). If you are trying to avoid artifacts present at q5, stepping up to q7 won't help much.

MPC Problem Samples

Reply #30 –
Quote
If you are trying to avoid artifacts present at q5, stepping up to q7 won't help much.

On the other side, some small differences (I don't say problems) we can ABX with --standard with a bit concentration doesn't occur at higher settings.
And on the biggest problems, --insane encodings are less annoying than --standard one.

MPC Problem Samples

Reply #31 –
Quote
Well, nobody is forced to anything ?

Who forces you to rip according to * standard, if you don't like it ?

Who forces you to rip according to * standard, if you don't like it ?

Of course, nobody is forced to use them - but they have big influence on the public.

If I want to rip something very carefully, these "*" and "*" guides are the first I'll find in Google. They are well-written, and give great advice - except, I think, for the quality setting (which is sad).

Quote
Surround content of music, for Logic7 / DPL2 decoding

Seriously, I don't like pro-logic so much. This kind of encoding lowers the quality of the sound anyway.

Quote
Why do you have a problem with *-compliance ?
Do, what you like, like everybody.

You're right - but it's just a bit sad to follow no standard, just because of that.


MOD:* No links to or names of ripping groups please.

MPC Problem Samples

Reply #32 –
Quote
On the other side, some small differences (I don't say problems) we can ABX with --standard with a bit concentration doesn't occur at higher settings.
And on the biggest problems, --insane encodings are less annoying than --standard one.

True. But then you are still making a compromise (which psychoaccoustic lossy compression will allways be). It shouldn't be labeled otherwise. user: "* is obviously a high quality standard, meant for people, who don't compromise regarding quality/size."


MOD:* No links to or names of ripping groups please.

MPC Problem Samples

Reply #33 –
Well, interesting to hear the opinions here.



As far as I can read, * is q7 and higher, this means obviously, lossless encoding is a possibility, too.

So why all the calling of q7.

Guruboolez expressed it exactly, some problems are less annoying, clearly less, imo.

So I understand, why q7 is a minimum switch.





I have friends, who swear on the transparence of q5, and others, who prefer q8, so what's the matter ?

The point is, if a guy (who is satisfied normally by q5) listens to music of q8, he has same enjoyment, fun of music.
The opposite, if the guy, (who prefers q8), listens to q5, he may be disappointed.









QUOTE  :
user wrote:
" ...Surround content of music, for Logic7 / DPL2 decoding .... "


Numlock wrote:
" Seriously, I don't like pro-logic so much. This kind of encoding lowers the quality of the sound anyway. "



Sorry to have found probably messing you up with dpl/dpl2/logic7-DEcoding
I hate pro-logic, you don't like it much, here we agree...
You are messing up DPL with DPL2/Logic7, I assume.

I have experience with Logic7 (nice) , bad experience with DPL, cannot speak for DPL2.


I have written it here at HA, I assume, I was one of the first, who published experiences with Logic7 (as saying goes, DPL2 is very similar, but even commercial German HiFi/"Audiophile" magazine "Stereoplay" wrote, Logic7 would have had a slight advantage regarding sound quality).
Logic7 offers great quality, even with stereo music of the 60s and 70s, as nearly no sound engineer during producing of stereo LPs, thought of surround out of stereo source by a matrix encoding......

DPL is clearly crap for music, it sounds dull, not exact, not precise anymore.
You cannot compare this outdated decoding procedure with Logic7, sorry.

Obviously the encoding of music requires more details, so that the Logic7 decoder finds later still enough details to decide, which parts of music is distributed to each of the 5 channels, FL, FR, C, RR, RL.


MOD:* No links to or names of ripping groups please.

MPC Problem Samples

Reply #34 –
Quote
Quote

If you are trying to avoid artifacts present at q5, stepping up to q7 won't help much.

On the other side, some small differences (I don't say problems) we can ABX with --standard with a bit concentration doesn't occur at higher settings.
And on the biggest problems, --insane encodings are less annoying than --standard one.

Exactly. It is too easy to say that q7 would be q5, plus wasted bits.

Quality improves (codec failure is less striking), but this improvement is not worth the extra bitrate for many people. I think everyone has to make this choice for himself.
Another myth is that if you go lossy, you cannot expect high-quality. Therefore it would be useless to use a high bitrate for lossy codecs... 
* is essentially a concept that puts quality above anything else. Best proof: all requirements are minimal requirements. (start = MPC@q7, the sky is the limit    (lossless)). For the same reason (quality prevails over speed etc...) the ripping procedure is superior & strict.


Quote
Quote
And yes, a lot people are satisfied by q6 eg., because listening abilities are distributed by a Gaussian (bell-like-) curve, distribution.

This is a very cheap excuse. When mpc artifacts, it's because of a mistake made inside the psychoacoustic model. It has little to do with the setting being too low for your hearing capabilities. The recent few samples which fail at all quality settings show this. Also, the 99+ % of samples having no problem, show this.

This is thinking in black/white. Some people hear artifacts better than others, no matter whether this is due to training (important factor, as most of us will have experienced ourselves:) ) or good ears or good equipment.

MOD:* No links to or names of ripping groups please.

MPC Problem Samples

Reply #35 –
Quote
Most of the few artefacts occuring with mpc, vanish, if you go from q5, 6 to q7, and especially at q8.

It´s just a kind of crazy, to increase the file-size up to 33 % (= distance from -q5 to -q7) for each file, just for these few problem-samples, which in normal music practically will never be noticable.

Quote
So, please, don't make a religion or dictate out of the question whether q5, q6 or q7 should be preferred.


And talking about standards: Setting a standard is a good thing. But it should be set so, that everyone can see the sense in it and is because of this willing to fullfill it. The minimum standard for generating mpc for example should be a secure read-in method from CD (best with EAC in secure-mode) and using an up-to-date mpc-codec-version (1.14). And nothing more. - That´s it!

edit: Don't discuss DC hub stuff here, please.
My used codecs and settings:
FLAC V1.1.2 -4 / APE V3.99 Update 4 -high / MPC V1.15v --q 5 / LAME V3.97b2 -V2 --vbr-new / OGG aoTuV V4.51 Lancer -q5
 

MPC Problem Samples

Reply #36 –
Quote
Quote

Most of the few artefacts occuring with mpc, vanish, if you go from q5, 6 to q7, and especially at q8.

It´s just a kind of crazy, to increase the file-size up to 33 % (= distance from -q5 to -q7) for each file, just for these few problem-samples, which in normal music practically will never be noticable.

Let's say q5 is pretty good. Proclaiming it to be perfect goes a bit too far IMHO.

Quote
The minimum standard for generating mpc for example should be a secure read-in method from CD (best with EAC in secure-mode) and using an up-to-date mpc-codec-version (1.14). And nothing more. - That´s it!

Feel free to make such a "min. standard for mpc"