After ABX'ing a couple of samples in MP3 320kbps, I have come to the conclusion where MP3 is useless - some artifacts are really there. I know that MPC has got not much hardware support (if any) but let's suppose I buy a RockBox supported iPod, then it's a start isn't it?
Since the FLAC's are huge and would take very much space to store them (about 50 DVD-Rs) it's convenient to convert them to MPC -q7. Even though like the word "BrainDead" - is there any reason to use q8?
dude, if you already have the flacs, i suggest you keep them and use a format natively supported by an ipod (nero or itunes aac).
you'll have regrets in the future when you have DAP not supported by rockbox.
and if you're really dead set on a rockboxed ipod, why not vorbis (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=36465)?
The lossyWAV method implemented by 2Bdecided and which Halb27 and I coded in Delphi gives about 33% reduction in FLAC size at quality setting -3 - which I find acceptable on DAP / headphones. See lossyFLAC thread in uploads for alpha v0.1.0.
you guys don't get it...
lossless is two much... at least for now
every lossy codec has its pros and cons.
the only contrary about MPC is hardware support, which I remember saying "buying a well-known rockbox supported ipod".
but guess what I can even connect the laptop to the stereo...
I don't see myself using Vorbis/AAC/MP3 anymore (too many issues)
After ABX'ing a couple of samples in MP3 320kbps, I have come to the conclusion where MP3 is useless - some artifacts are really there. I know that MPC has got not much hardware support (if any) but let's suppose I buy a RockBox supported iPod, then it's a start isn't it?
Since the FLAC's are huge and would take very much space to store them (about 50 DVD-Rs) it's convenient to convert them to MPC -q7. Even though like the word "BrainDead" - is there any reason to use q8?
I suppose now you could rockbox something or get a Cowon to play mpc. I wouldn't go past q6..max 7
i agree. that's why i use mp3. but since you're ears are way better, then try abxing nero or itunes aac or vorbis at 192kbps. these formats are compatible with a lot more devices than mpc.
My ears are "no way better", they're just normal ears. You can probably hear AAC issue in this thread:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=57353 (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=57353)
That is what I call silly audible issue at q0.6
And there are reports of people saying that you won't get transparent settings in OGG unless you go really high. MPC vs. OGG to me have no hardware support in practice. Of course OGG has MORE support, but not even near MP3. So no reason for OGG.
Since the FLAC's are huge and would take very much space to store them (about 50 DVD-Rs)
Do you really want to chance re-ripping all your music years later! For under $25.00 USD you can buy a 50 pack of DVD-R's at most places, in the U.S.A. at least.
Better yet you could also get a secondary hard disk internal or external with enough storage capacity to store your FLAC's, and any lossy format encodes derived from them you'd like to use for portable devices/automobile in the now, and in the future.
even mpc has artifacts (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=12031). that's the sad truth about lossy codecs.
you guys don't get it...
lossless is two much... at least for now
You could get 1 or more cheap external hard drives and put your FLAC's there and never touch them again until a better lossy codec comes along or unitl it becomes cost effective to listen to lossless on portables.
With 500 GB at less than 100 USD and 320 GB for less than 70 USD, I see no reason to discard you FLAC's
As far as what lossy format to use, I have no opinion.
even mpc has artifacts (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=12031). that's the sad truth about lossy codecs.
MPC may have artifacts but everybody will agree that MPC is a much better codec than widespread MP3.
And that's what counts.
MPC may have artifacts but everybody will agree that MPC is a much better codec than widespread MP3.
And that's what counts.
but I still can't see any reason to prefer MPC over Vorbis.
Has Vorbis more artifacts than MPC at the same bitrate? Where can I find this test?
Have you tried to ABX them?
And there are reports of people saying that you won't get transparent settings in OGG unless you go really high.
Last time I checked here the common thought was that we can't test above 128kbs because all modern codecs are "trasparent" at that bitrate for the most of people, so we can't gather enough statistical data.
After ABX'ing a couple of samples in MP3 320kbps, I have come to the conclusion where MP3 is useless
Which "couple of samples"??
My ears are "no way better", they're just normal ears.
Bourne you have way better ears if you can say that mp3 at 320kbps are useless after ABX just "a couple of samples".
Bourne, just don't throw out your FLAC rips! Store them anyway either on HDD or on DVD-R discs. Any lossy codec is just worse than lossless.
There are nice portable players with native FLAC support is that's your problem.... (?)
Have you considered Wavpack lossy? If you store the corrections on a DVD, you could go back to lossless without having to rerip your entire collection.
Bourne, just don't throw out your FLAC rips! Store them anyway either on HDD or on DVD-R discs. Any lossy codec is just worse than lossless.
[sarcasm]
Yup and a CD is just worse than SACD. -.-
[/sarcasm]
I found lossy codec are better, because they need less space and I haven't found any quality difference in any application I did.
My ears are "no way better", they're just normal ears. You can probably hear AAC issue in this thread:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=57353 (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=57353)
That is what I call silly audible issue at q0.6
And there are reports of people saying that you won't get transparent settings in OGG unless you go really high. MPC vs. OGG to me have no hardware support in practice. Of course OGG has MORE support, but not even near MP3. So no reason for OGG.
Just a thought. Try the AAC encoder at ABR mode since you are targeting 256 k or more , space and efficiency isn't of great concern. I didn't try that sample yet, but I have the feeling that 220..270k ABR will stop those [very rare] silly issues.
you guys don't get it...
lossless is two much... at least for now
every lossy codec has its pros and cons.
the only contrary about MPC is hardware support, which I remember saying "buying a well-known rockbox supported ipod".
but guess what I can even connect the laptop to the stereo...
I don't see myself using Vorbis/AAC/MP3 anymore (too many issues)
Believe me, we get it. The question is, Do you get it? It makes no sense to get rid of your FLAC files which represent an exact copy of the originals. On top of that it is very easy to convert FLAC to any lossy format you wish to in the future. So when you get tired of your MPC files, what are you going to do then??
MPC may have artifacts but everybody will agree that MPC is a much better codec than widespread MP3.
And that's what counts.
Everyone will agree?? Put me down on the disagree part here. Oh....and what counts is what you prefer because your hearing is different than everyone else's hearing.
After ABX'ing a couple of samples in MP3 320kbps, I have come to the conclusion where MP3 is useless
Wow!! I'm sure the lame devs would love to see these samples. I'm not saying you can't tell the difference. But even if you can, the difference should be very negligible as to not bother you.
Having gone down this road many times (changing format / setting) I reached the following conclusions: The only thing for sure is mp3 or lossless. With mp3 you can use a fast non secure ripper, Use -V4 or so and get very good results in over 90 % of cases. That is lots of pressure taken of ones shoulders in backup / size management, transcoding elimination etc. The other alternative to vanilla lossless is the hybrid lossy method using correction files which I discussed in other posts. All the others leave you in the middle: Big files , much less compatibility than mp3, still not lossless and when the dissatisfaction hits (sooner or later) you are ripping again.
some of you think i am trashing the FLACs... no... i just don't have anything to play them... my intention is to keep them on a drawer, that is all they serve for right now. I also have the duplicates in CD-R PCM, but CD is not a portable solution either. MP3 is ok, but other formats are much better, I am pretty sure that if everyone do a monster test on many 320kbps samples people will give up on mp3.
After ABX'ing a couple of samples in MP3 320kbps, I have come to the conclusion where MP3 is useless
Wow!! I'm sure the lame devs would love to see these samples. I'm not saying you can't tell the difference. But even if you can, the difference should be very negligible as to not bother you.
The problem with 320 k mp3 is that when its not transparent you are stuck knowing psychologically that there is no more. You have lost portability and faith in the overkill. That usually leads to another format or re encoding. If it happens say at 160 k it is more forgivable given portability and mostly good quality. With other formats there is a higher likelyhood that some setting is always transparent - a certainty with wavpack lossy , flac optimfrog lossy. If something isn't transparent at 320 k its not great but it will be at some higher bitrate. You don't need to re encode or change setting because you know there is the capability of more. Like wise if I use a 270 k wavpack file on the PC and rockbox, i don't need to obsess about quality too much as I know the correction files are in the drawer.
nice thought shadowking
some of you think i am trashing the FLACs... no... i just don't have anything to play them... my intention is to keep them on a drawer, that is all they serve for right now. I also have the duplicates in CD-R PCM, but CD is not a portable solution either. MP3 is ok, but other formats are much better, I am pretty sure that if everyone do a monster test on many 320kbps samples people will give up on mp3.
In that case it doesn't matter too much which format as long as you have the player. That COWON looks pretty damn good. You can also use mp3 at half the bitrate by telling yourself 'its lossy, not perfect, But is pretty darn good a lot of the time and very convenient.' That is what I did.
MP3 is ok, but other formats are much better, I am pretty sure that if everyone do a monster test on many 320kbps samples people will give up on mp3.
Have you seen tests done here at HA?
I have found the latest with MPC (but it was done only from Gurubolez on classical music)
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=36465 (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=36465)
(so I don't understand why do you prefer mpc over vorbis)
This is the listening test page of HA wiki
http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?ti...Listening_Tests (http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Listening_Tests)
I haven't seen any other recent high-bitrate test but Gurubolez's one.
After latest 128Kbs public test, he said
At this bitrate, further tests are indeed questionable. Quality of the tested encoders is apparently too high for most listeners at ~130 kbps - at least for those interested by participating in such tests. The 192 kbps syndrom has now reached the 128 kbps area: it's beyond most listeners abilities, including HA.org members' one. At this stage, all people who can't differenciate MP3 from Vorbis or AAC and interested by these formats should try to lower the bitrate (I guess that it's already the case for many of them).
People here is starting to have troubles even at 64kbs, with modern codecs.
So if you find some artifacts in "a couple of samples" with lame at 320kbs it could be only because:
- You have found unlucky samples.
- You have exceptionally good ears.
- You haven't done ABX tests properly.
With lossy codec, ABX tests are the only meter we can use. I use Vorbis at Q7 for my collection, but I know that is only a my superstition (Vorbis at q5 is fully transparent for me), and Q7 and above can not protect me from artifacts on some samples, if they exist, simply because they are untested, and a high bitrate is not necessarily a guarantee.
mercurio! you use vorbis at q7.... what a such high bitrate! LOL
weird coming from someone who just told me that 128kbps is enough for everyone
mercurio! you use vorbis at q7.... what a such high bitrate! LOL
weird coming from someone who just told me that 128kbps is enough for everyone
You are right, Q7 it is only a my superstition, you know.
...but if someone asks to me I cant answer using my superstitions.
edit: I never said "128kbps is enough for everyone", I said tests have shown that 128kbs is enough for the most people here in the most cases.
I'm just curious: the bad 320kbps mp3s, what LAME version and command line switches did you use? What's wrong with the mp3s? Could you name some tracks where this happens?
to original poster: yes you will regret it, i have a big part of my library only encoded into mpc (iam way to lazy to rerip) and the non-compatibility-portability is annoying.
@robert
look at this thread: I also ABXed that track easily.
Setting - recommended (3.97final -b 320)
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....c=57462&hl= (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=57462&hl=)
some of you think i am trashing the FLACs... no... i just don't have anything to play them...
For portable, ss above already recommended, Cowon players are amazing to play FLAC. I have a Cowon iAudio X5L, it's just excellent to play flac files directly. My version has 30 GB hard drive, but I think 60 GB one also exists.
For table standalone player, there's SqueezeBox or Roku Soundbridge for playing FLAC from a NAS.
I might order Ziova...
290 USD + 200 USD import tax + 900 USD shipping tax
LOL
From all info collected I may just ignore any MP3 artifact and do just like shadowking suggested, oh hey it's an artifact but it sounds damn good... and stick with -V2 --vbr-new - it's the universal HOMESTEREO/CAR/PORTABLE/PC solution.
It's interesting to see how people take this whole thing into a very passionate level about their favourite format.
Let Blue-Ray/HD-DVD/DTS Lossless/FLAC Studio Master 24/48 downloads come!
Well... I wonder why didn't anyone created LosslessMP3 (since we have lossyFLAC).
Well... I wonder why didn't anyone created LosslessMP3 (since we have lossyFLAC).
Seriously, did you even take a look at Wavpack Hybrid or OptimFrog Dualstream?
Seriously, did you even take a look at Wavpack Hybrid or OptimFrog Dualstream?
seriously yes... i took a look at it... but
ain't able to play anywhere...
I have said this
BS kinda thing mainly because
"hardware compatibility" - the creation of a lossless format that is
backwards compatible with mp3 players. doesn't even need to compress that much than FLAC -5. A few megs would be just fine.
DVD-Players decode mp3 to PCM, but won't decode ISO->WAV->PCM (not LPCM here please!)
If a DVD techincally decodes an mp3 to PCM, it might just because it found a "mp3-header".
DVD-Players decode mp3 to PCM, but won't decode ISO->WAV->PCM (not LPCM here please!)
If a DVD techincally decodes an mp3 to PCM, it might just because it found a "mp3-header".
If WAV size is enough for you, and you would like to use DVD-R discs, then why don't you just create DVD-Audio discs? DVD-Audio supports to play 44.1 kHz audio.
http://dvd-audio.sourceforge.net/ (http://dvd-audio.sourceforge.net/)
GUI:
http://home.comcast.net/~adobeman/DVDAGUI/ (http://home.comcast.net/~adobeman/DVDAGUI/)
batagy,
Isn't DVD-A incompatible with DVD-V only devices?
Isn't most DVD+/-R medium incompatible with DVD-A format?
I never seen a DVD-A enabled DVD for purchase.
Seriously, did you even take a look at Wavpack Hybrid or OptimFrog Dualstream?
seriously yes... i took a look at it... but ain't able to play anywhere...
Well you said:
I know that MPC has got not much hardware support (if any) but let's suppose I buy a RockBox supported iPod, then it's a start isn't it?
Rockbox supports Wavpack lossy... so you can have lossy in your ipod and lossless in your computer (or lossy there too).
The advantage of wv lossy over mpc is that if you dump the corrections to a dvdr, you can get the 'lossless' versions of your files without reripping all audio cds.
batagy,
Isn't DVD-A incompatible with DVD-V only devices?
Isn't most DVD+/-R medium incompatible with DVD-A format?
I never seen a DVD-A enabled DVD for purchase.
1. DVD-A is incompatible with DVD-V only devices, but nowadays you can get cheap DVD players which does support DVD-Audio. For example Samsung DVD-P355 (older), Pioneer DV-600AV (new), some Panasonic players etc. There are many DVD players which support DVD-Audio.
2. All DVD+R and DVD-R
is compatible with DVD-Audio, that means, you can burn yourself a DVD-Audio compliant disc to a very normal simple DVD disc. Nothing special medium required.
3. Because it doesn't need any special disc.
I burnt DVD-Audio discs, and it's playing without problem with my Panasonis DVD-RA82, Pioneer DV-585A, and Samsung DVD-P355. Now these mentioned players are discontinued, but there are newer ones.
I really don't understand why you have decided to open this thread, when it's more than clear that you had already made up your mind and no one is gonna change that, regardless of what they claim or suggest.
You want to go with MPC, even though it is well known that lacks any decent hardware support? Go ahead then. Just bear in mind that it takes more than a normal ear to distinguish artifacts in 320Kbps mp3s. Considering though that the music is gonna be played through a typical iPod, I wouldn't mind the existence of a few artifacts, when I go down a noisy road. It's not like I'm looking for perfection in such conditions.
Since you are not satisfied with eveyone's propositions, do it your own way and accept the pros and cons.
some people are just blunt! either lane they take...
I'm just stating the obvious. Since you have found reasons to argue in everyone's suggestions, you don't prefer lossless and heard artifacts to any other lossy format other than mpc, take the road with that as you had decided in the first place.
Do you really think that you leave much to argue about? I don't think so...
Go ahead and do it. I hope you wont feel the same regret as I do. I have about 300 CDs in Musepack insane. Musepack feels more and more like an abandoned format every day that passes. I wish I had done LAME --alt-preset standard (or FLAC like I do now, but that wasn't an option at the time).
Seriously, I'm sure you managed to ABX some trouble samples with -b 320 MP3s, but will you really care about it during casual listening? You don't state that you used the the latest LAME encoder for the MP3s you ABX. Did you?
more people worring about this! LOL
man, nevermind...
and no, I just won't be going lossy...
you guys don't get it...
lossless is two much... at least for now
every lossy codec has its pros and cons.
the only contrary about MPC is hardware support, which I remember saying "buying a well-known rockbox supported ipod".
but guess what I can even connect the laptop to the stereo...
I don't see myself using Vorbis/AAC/MP3 anymore (too many issues)
I'm sort of in the same kind of situation but I'm switching from MPC to Vorbis. I switched to MPC years ago after being a LAME --alt-present standard (V2) user for years. After ABX'ing between V2 LAME (and even 320 CBR LAME) versus MPC Standard, I knew I had to change codecs. I tried Vorbis back then too (when the aoTuV branch was in the budding stages), but ABX'ing told me Vorbis at high bitrates wasn't good enough yet against MPC Standard. So I was content for years using just Standard and Xtreme MPC. I don't do the portable thing and I don't trade files, so it was just for home use, and MPC fit that bill perfectly.
But recently, I tried Vorbis again, and let me tell you, it's come a long way. The tuning that's been happening to aoTuV is amazing. I find with MPC, it reaches 99% to CD quality at q7 (~225kbps). Well after a week of testing with Vorbis aoTuv Beta 5, I find it reaches 99% to lossless at q6 (~192kbps). That's amazing. And it's 2nd only to AAC at all the low bitrates (I never use low bitrates, but I was amazed how good 64kbps (q0) vorbis file sounds). And the Lancer optimized builds of Vorbis aoTuv Beta 5 is even more amazing. I can encode an entire album in 2 minutes. That's crazy talk even by MPC's speed standards.
And I really didn't care before, but because Vorbis is open-source, there's a lot of development on it (in comparison to MPC), and I gotta agree with all the people that say MPC is going the way of other obsolete formats. Ever try to edit an MPC file? Better dig up the original CD! So since it doesn't hold the highest lossy quality medal anymore and 3rd party development is almost nonexistent, there's really no more reason for me to use it. It was cool while it lasted, but I'm moving on to Vorbis.
What problems are there against Vorbis that you don't like? Maybe you can clue me in.
Unless you're you're annoyed with the ability to hear particular artifacts on a handful of your encoded tracks, you'll never regret choosing to stick with a stable and universally accepted format.
For formats that are not and likely will never be as prevalent, you're basically going to limit your choices when it comes to playback options.
Sorry mpc fans (and vorbis, but to a lesser extent), but my money is on mpeg when it comes to bitrates that are intended to deliver transparency.
Well for me OGG and MPC are in the "same position"..
This is a reply from a MPC web admin for those bashing MPC to death:
To anyone who asks if Musepack is still being developed, I have several points to present:
1. Have you missed the last 4 encoder releases (3 from last year, 1 from 2004), which fix some quite important issues?
2. Have you missed the continuous updates to libmpcdec, the portable Musepack decoder library which has enabled Musepack support in various applications on various platforms?
3. Musepack's sound quality/psychoacoutics related code is very advanced and therefore very few people can handle it. The former main developer is busy with other (not audio codec related, but frightningly advanced and demanding) projects.
The situation is not much different with other modern audio and video codecs. Pretty much all open source codec projects, including us, are in need of capable developers.
4. Personally, I've grown tired of comparisons related to "who has the most development?" The most obvious example is Musepack VS Vorbis. Most people may not even know that the last quality related developments Vorbis has had occured in 2001-2002 (excluding unsupported 3rd party modifications, or hacks). Monty, the main developer, hasn't published anything in that field since then. The focus has been on cleaning up code, fixing bugs, improving speed, etc. There is constant development, and exactly the same applies to Musepack. Code cleanups, bug fixes, optimization, only the last quality related optimizations occured in 2003. But that doesn't stop people from spreading ridiculous statements of "lack of development" or the "death" of the project, which hasn't been more alive in years.
5. We know several people (not only Klemm or Buschmann) who are capable of furthering SV7.5 development, but unfortunately everyone we know is busy with another project that takes pretty much all of his time. We've said on various occasions that we'd appreciate any assistance we could get regarding the development of the bitstream, which is the foremost thing on our to-do list.
To summarize: The "format," as in, the bitstream, hasn't had changes. Changes are planned but more developers are needed. The encoder will keep being updated as it has been 3 times last year whenever we find an issue. The decoder library is constantly under development and that is a main reason you can see Musepack being supported pretty much anywhere nowadays, be it by Rockbox on iRiver or iPod portable players, TCPMP on mobile phones, numerous players on Windows and Linux/UNIX/BSD systems, and other platforms.
Source text at: http://forum.musepack.net/showthread.php?t=265 (http://forum.musepack.net/showthread.php?t=265)
I think he's got a point on the matter OGG vs. MPC. OGG (and LAME) development is already stressed to death, and there is also the fact that NOT MANY people are tweaking. The original OGG developer hasn't published anything since 2001-2002, where OGG development was really a locomotive. Even HA.org wiki states how limited OGG development is, stating as "Limited Official Development". Oh Well that would be the same thing for MPC right?
Personally I still believe MPC is superior on the high-bitrate ground, compared to Vorbis. You see people in the forum saying that they stick to "-q7" or even "-q8" - but well that's just saying the same as LAME 320kbps.
About hardware support, Vorbis has got a lot more support yes... but it is also frigging limited. Think internationally. Don't limit people's access to US market only. There are NOT many OGG players out there, in particular no DVD-Player I know of can play a single OGG file. But they all can play MP3.
So I don't think there are many advantages going OGG.
I don't think they are in the same position. There is much better vorbis awareness - lots of rippers, frontends, players have native vorbis support. Not many support mpc. Vorbis has always been an alternative for techheads, a standard in unix os etc while mpc use was pretty much restricted to HA users or some ripping scene.
I don't think they are in the same position.
They never were. Musepack is the only "MP3-rival" that isn't backed by a commercial or professional organization. For something that started as a one-man project - and concerning the psychoacoustics, was essentially tuned by two capable persons in total, with the help of volunteering listeners - it has come remarkably far. I mean, when even the MP3-inventors can't convince that many people to use the official successor format, you unfortunately have to admit that these other alternatives will probably stay in a niche, be it bigger or smaller.
There is much better vorbis awareness
I think the reason is that vorbis scales better to low bit rates.
When at a certain point Klemm wanted to optimize the low bit rates of Musepack, there was almost zero interest from the users. The Musepack "fans" (including myself) were using at least -q 5. So being looked at as a "high bit rate only" codec (even if that wasn't the whole truth) made Musepack even more a niche.
All that beside, mp3 at 320 is silly to me, the VBR modes of LAME have a much better size/quality ratio.
Musepack has good quality for the bitrate, if size matters that much and you just want to use your audio the way you use it now, why not go Musepack? The caveats are already mentioned.
as long as you have the mpc dvd-r safely locked up in a drawer why would you regret it? basically your question is about the best non-mp3 portable lossy format, and not archival since you have that taken care of, right?
the new ipod classic have yet to be rockbox'd (last I checked), so it may be worth your while to abx some aacs to see if they are acceptable to you as a portable format.
i love my mpc's to death, but i'm starting to think that the artifacts may not be as apparent precisely because they are not used as much so that my ears are not as accustomed to hearing the artifacts.
I encoded my entire music collection to MPC back in 2002, which I regret. It's still in Musepack but since then I've moved to OS X and the compatibility for the the format is not good. Cog/Play handles it but does not like APEv2 tags.
Today I've got a more relaxed attitude. LAME v3.97 -V 2 and ID3v2.3 is a good choice, although–like you–I've ripped to FLAC so I don't have to transcode when MP3 is no longer the best choice for a lossy portable format. -V 2 might not be 100% transparent on all test samples. But hey, if that bothers you while you are _really listening_ to music you've probably got other issues to deal with than audio compression.
the new ipod classic have yet to be rockbox'd.
And it most likely never will be. Visit the #rockbox channel and they'll explain to you that most likely none of the newer iPod models will be supported by Rockbox.
you guys don't get it...
lossless is two much... at least for now
every lossy codec has its pros and cons.
the only contrary about MPC is hardware support, which I remember saying "buying a well-known rockbox supported ipod".
but guess what I can even connect the laptop to the stereo...
I don't see myself using Vorbis/AAC/MP3 anymore (too many issues)
I would recommend keeping them. Making MPC copies is fine.
mercurio! you use vorbis at q7.... what a such high bitrate! LOL
weird coming from someone who just told me that 128kbps is enough for everyone
You know q<n> is just a quality setting. I'm just saying this because there may be vast bitrate differences. I'm currently converting lots of stuff for my notebook, which is in the living room audio chain, at q8. With q8, classical compresses at around 200 kbps, idm electronica are often at almost 300 kbps... (aotuvb5)
@bourne, in year 2000 i have started ripping cd, tried wma (horrible) bladencoder ( ahhh...) vorbis ( gapless, correct sound but slow slow slow encoding) lame ( slow and not gapless ) lossless ( problems with hard disc space) and mpc ( fast encoding, best sound, gapless)
5 years after changed to vorbis ( lancer encoder, super fast , lover bitrate at quality 7 than mpc insane and same ( or best ? ) quality sound, more hardware support than mpc)
today i think change to flac and lame v2 , no more problem to disc space, see the price of 1tb hard disc no problems of sound with lossless and no problems of hardware with mp3, also today encoding is fast with latest lame compile and recent pc.
I just can see the point that someone uses other lossy formats for transparency than mp3, when they also have their problem samples, less compatibility and so on... When someone wants to use low bitrate, then I can understand why he or she switched to another format.
You want transparency? Lame V2 - V0 offers transparency, as good as the other ones when they reach transparency status.
Transparency is transparency, lossless is lossless.
Use MP3 for transparency, use your favorite format for lossless!
Its not that simple. MPC was designed for transparency at very modest bitrate. MP3 was not although it can deliver a lot of the time , there are monthly reports of problems here and its never going to end. Personally I feel more safe with MPC --standard than MP3 320k.. MPC --extreme : how many problem cases ??
Mp3 / aac patented / restricted, MPC is not. If one is doing 90 % of listening @ home and want a free / open high quality codec then MPC is a good choice. It decodes very fast so should be excellent with DAP. Now there is some commercial and rockbox support. It is also quite respectable for transcoding into other formats. Seriously I thing musepack --extreme @ 200k is enough for archiving for all but the most demanding listener and even then...
Most rippers and OS that we use support it. I suppose to choose it over Vorbis is a matter of personal taste. Since most HA users are still interested in lossy and it seems they like those mid-high bitrates then MPC should be considered again.
MPC as with mp3, aac , vorbis, is a dead end meaning you cannot go back and get the original WAV. LossyWAV can be transcoded to other supported lossless formats keeping its high compression, Wavpack lossy can create correction files. Maybe these days its mp3 or lossless and perhaps hybrid lossy methods. MPC, Vorbis and maybe AAC are all in the same boat
maybe more problems reported has something to do with the popularity of the format?
I'm using MPC since 2003 after fighting with MP3 for a few years. My ears couldn't be satisfied with MP3 and I decided to try something better. Since then, I've seen very few improvements to MPC format, and I have to admit that Vorbis and AAC perform better in some cases. But there there are still some real samples when the MPC sound is "more transparent".
I've been a huge MPC fan in the past, now I'm pretty much disappointed regarding the evolution of the format. SV8 isn't so interesting to me because it doesn't add much quality to the current version of SV7. It is clear that MPC has a huge potential which is wasted due to lack of interest/time/resources/etc of developers. I don't blame anybody, I understand why the MDT can't progress faster and better, but... I'm just disappointed, having about 300 GB of music in this format and waiting for a miracle.
I agree. I was also a big fan. You just used default settings and very rarely did it disappoint. 128 k and lower bitrate never really interested me. It covered most ends at --standard , otherwise --extreme. All it needed was some hardware support and a proper format (SV8).
You don't have to change (like you can still run old PC's and OS fine). If it works it works. Quality is still expected to up there with the best - do you have abxable samples from your cd's ?
The only alternative to MPC for me so far is wavpack lossy because lossless is the future and its harder to invalidate / kill a lossless codec. With the correction file system its futureproof while quality at the upper 200 k range is inline with the other codecs at high bitrate.
Try using ABR MP3 with raised lowpass instead of CBR. I cannot explain it but it sounded better to me than CBR.