MPC vs VORBIS vs MP3 vs AAC at 180 kbps
Reply #44 – 2005-08-22 22:02:56
Regarding MPC , the result is split, somehow for classical samples there seems to be a degration in quality and size-effectivity (bitrate boost), comparing MPC v1.14b with MPC v1.15v I cannot dare to ask Guru, to compare this sample set again between 1.14b and 1.15v to get a ranking of this new multiformat test including not only 1.15v but also 1.14. [a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=321715"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] There are two different problems in my opinion: - bitrate consumption : mpc --standard has increased by more than 10 kbps compared to former release of mppenc (I can post a full bitrate table if you want). 1.15 series is by far the version which presents the highest bitrate (not only with classical: people listening different kind of music have confirmed it - but how much is something I can't say). But this inflation is not necessary a problem: some users don't really care about few additionnal kbps, and it could bring higher quality (higher bitrate doesn't necessary mean lower efficiency). -quality (with classical): I'm not sure that 1.15 presents regression compared to 1.14 beta. The problem maybe occur earlier. I compared 1.15u to a much older release of mppenc (1.01j) which clearly revealed issues with the latest version of mppenc (+ inflated bitrate). Now I can't tell when exactly the problem happened, or if the quality (with classical) has slowly decreased with version > 1.0 stable.Thank you for a test and a detailed report, guruboolez. This result is glad also for me. It proves what the direction of my tuning was not mistaken in. (...) Magic does not exist there. [a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=321717"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] As usual, congrats to you Aoyumi. I have tested three times your encoder (at 80, 96 and now 180 kbps) and each time I discovered the results with a deep sigh... of astonishment. I probably have to cease my listening tests before people start to suspect me from zealotry Congrats! Your job is near to reconciliate me with high bitrate lossy encodings.Interesting that lame 3.97 outperforms AAC. There is still life in the old dog Good to know when planning to use a portable which only supports AAC and MP3. [a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=321722"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] I don't want to defend Nero AAC, but keep in mind that LAME -V2 and Nero Digital -streaming won't probably lead to similar music with most musical genre. I don't have the material to build a precise bitrate table with anything else but classical, but from whay I read in the past it's Nero AAC -normal which produce a similar bitrate to LAME --preset standard. And -normal should sound better than -streaming tested in my comparison. It's very important to remind that -besides the samples- the fairness of presets used in my test is not universal. (...) as Guru already noted, fast mode was not regarded stable enough, and in the current version - it is still not. [a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=321756"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] I'd like to ask you what does the unstability issue of 'fast' encoder consist. I know two serious issues: - smearing (it seems that 'high' encoder has better pre-echo handling). - bloated bitrate on some occasions. I made a graphical comparison which illustrate this point. Bitrate are based on 150 full tracks (> 16 hours of music): I'm pretty impatient to see you working more intensively on the LC core.What I'm trying to say is that, unlike most other genres, classical samples can be very different and so when you have a thorough test like this one, you can get a pretty good overall picture of each codec (encoder). [a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=321772"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] I'm fully agree with you: 'classical' is a generic term which doesn't really mean anything and which wrongly encompasses most written instrumental/lyrical music composed before the 20th century. About lossy encoding: I would also believe that any encoder able to handle perfectly all situation encountered with 'classical' would be a champion for every musical genre. But such encoder don't exists and my current listening test is also far to represent all possible situations happening with classical. That's why it would be nice to see tests focusing on other problems than those tested here. My results can't of course be generalized and extrapolated to other musical genre as well as it would be excessive to believe that results could be totally different with a another set of samples.