Skip to main content


Please be aware that much of the software linked to or mentioned on this forum is niche and therefore infrequently downloaded. Lots of anti-virus scanners and so-called malware detectors like to flag infrequently downloaded software as bad until it is either downloaded enough times, or its developer actually bothers with getting each individual release allow listed by every single AV vendor. You can do many people a great favor when encountering such a "problem" example by submitting them to your AV vendor for examination. For almost everything on this forum, it is a false positive.
Topic: Musepack in 2020 (Read 2780 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:

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.

Musepack --quality 6
Wavpack -hb4.55x5cvm


Re: Musepack in 2020

Reply #27
According to this reencoding listening test

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. :/

SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2021