You do realize that MPx formats were designed in the early 90s?
Some sacrifices had to be made so they could be used on devices from that era.
Why do you think we have newer and improved formats like MPC, Vorbis, AAC and Opus?

You are, of course, aware that only one of these things represents bitrate?

@itisljar Bits-per-sample represents bitrate too, as long as it's together with the sampling rate value.

Quote from: Klymins on 2024-11-28 17:14:03

@itisljar Bits-per-sample represents bitrate too, as long as it's together with the sampling rate value.

Bits-per-sample is bit depth. You know, 4 bits, 8 bits, 16 bits, 20 bits, 24 bits, 32 bits. Each sample is represented by certain number of bits.
Are you sure you're not misreading bits-per-second?

Quote from: Klymins on 2024-11-28 17:14:03

@itisljar Bits-per-sample represents bitrate too, as long as it's together with the sampling rate value.

Bits-per-sample is bit depth. You know, 4 bits, 8 bits, 16 bits, 20 bits, 24 bits, 32 bits. Each sample is represented by certain number of bits.
Are you sure you're not misreading bits-per-second?

Some lossy formats allow the user to set either a bitrate value or a bit-per-sample value. For example, Wavpack lossy allows these settings. If I set for example Wavpack to 400 kbps, it will use 400 kbps for a 44100 Hz sample rate (which is a high bitrate for CD material) but also 400 kbps for a 96000 Hz sample rate (which isn't high anymore, considering the file isn’t downsampled to 48000 Hz like most other lossy formats).
Setting the bit-per-sample value enables automatic bitrate adjustment according to the desired output sampling rate.

"Bits per sample" has come to mean the number of bits representing each unpacked (pre-encoded) sample, not the average number of bits used at every sample point. Of course you can count the latter too: if you can compress CDDA down to 225 kbit/s, it corresponds to spending 5 bits per average sample, but "bits per sample" has by the development of the language acquired a different meaning.

I generally don't advocate over-moderation, but too much insistence to use phrases for their wrong meaning, will border on a TOS #10 violation. 

Example - hypothetical this time, but who knows next thread:
A "bitrate" of "50" does not mean a compression ratio of 50 percent. Of course, in a parallel wor(l)d, someone could have thought up that "bitrate" would be a nice phrase for bits per bit and it could have stuck.

Some lossy formats allow the user to set either a bitrate value or a bit-per-sample value. For example, Wavpack lossy allows these settings. If I set for example Wavpack to 400 kbps, it will use 400 kbps for a 44100 Hz sample rate (which is a high bitrate for CD material) but also 400 kbps for a 96000 Hz sample rate (which isn't high anymore, considering the file isn’t downsampled to 48000 Hz like most other lossy formats).
Setting the bit-per-sample value enables automatic bitrate adjustment according to the desired output sampling rate.

@itisljar No. Of course bits-per-sample does not represent bitrate on it's own, but it does when it's together with the sampling rate value. For example, 3bps at 44100Hz is equal to 132.3kbps.

Quote from: Klymins on 2024-11-28 17:40:10

@itisljar No. Of course bits-per-sample does not represent bitrate on it's own, but it does when it's together with the sampling rate value. For example, 3bps at 44100Hz is equal to 132.3kbps.

So, by your calculations, CDDA audio has 32 bits per sample?

Please, use standardized language. It was enough to use "encoder colors", but this goes to another level.

Yes. And wavpack will encode both files with around 400 kbit/s, no matter what the sample rate (or original bit depth) is. Try it, I just did. It doesn't matter if it is too high bitrate for CDDA or too low for Hires, it will always be that.

Disadvantages compared to what?

1.1: This creates big gaps between the low bitrates.
1.2: This does not have a big disadvantage but is weird.
1.3: I explained this.

Quote from: Klymins on 2024-11-29 11:04:01

1.1: This creates big gaps between the low bitrates.
1.2: This does not have a big disadvantage but is weird.
1.3: I explained this.

These codecs are not intended for ultra low bitrates!
The target bitrate for MP2 was 256 kbit/s, for MP3 128 kbit/s. Back in these days (the early 1990s) people compared the outcome with the original uncompressed sound and did not want to torture themselves.

Try -b4 (as 4 bit per sample) with stereo files: it's around 350 kbps for 44100 kbps, the double for 88200 kbps, etc...

Quote from: guruboolez on 2024-11-28 20:36:30

Try -b4 (as 4 bit per sample) with stereo files: it's around 350 kbps for 44100 kbps, the double for 88200 kbps, etc...

Yes, I am aware that 4-bit formats exist, like ADPCM. I am arguing against using that for showing bitrate instead standardized kbit/s or mbit/s.

I already said, but apparently I have to say again: Very low bitrates (like 16kbps for example) are completely transparent for some sounds (at high sampling rates too), like pure tones or humming, which can be encountered at for example the the silent parts of a music or a non-music recording.

    1.3: In all layers of MPEG-1 and MPEG-2 Layer 1, bitrates lower than 32kbps isn't supported while they can be enough for some sounds (especially for MPEG-2, but they can in MPEG-1 too, for example at the end of a music).