Hydrogenaudio Forums

Hydrogenaudio Forum => General Audio => Topic started by: chrome_waves on 2017-04-22 07:59:47

Title: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: chrome_waves on 2017-04-22 07:59:47
I need to compress some lossless files to lossy for storage/use on my mobile phone. I am thinking to use musepack (mpc) as it's supposed to sound quite good at higher bitrates, my phone has no problem playing mpc.
Before I start the task though, I thought I might come here and ask opinions as to whether mpc is a good choice, and why/why not. Also any recommendations/thoughts are quite welcome.
Thank You  :P
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: itisljar on 2017-04-22 08:30:31
Considering high bitrates you are about to use, it really doesn't matter which MODERN lossy codec you are about to use - so, why not using something that can be decoded by hardware, like aac? To conserve batteries.
IIRC, mpc is almost always decoded by software on mobile phones.
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: chrome_waves on 2017-04-22 08:55:59
Considering high bitrates you are about to use, it really doesn't matter which MODERN lossy codec you are about to use - so, why not using something that can be decoded by hardware, like aac? To conserve batteries.
IIRC, mpc is almost always decoded by software on mobile phones.
You make a good point if it's true (I don't know that much about it)
Android has hardware decoding ability for aac and this would conserve battery?
This is the sort of input I was looking for, thank you
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: shadowking on 2017-04-22 12:15:27
MPC --standard or --extreme (180~210k) may be good choice. Its very fast and could be better quality than AAC /MP3 256~320k.  Mp3 has some technical limitations and AAC /OGG / opus have not had extensive testing or tuning at high bitrates.

At 200+ k mp3 can be a good choice and potentially more stable than the others except mpc which was designed for mid-high bitrate. You can also try the lame3995o mp3 variant @ Q1 setting.
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: greynol on 2017-04-22 12:51:04
could be better quality than AAC /MP3 256~320k
and an asteroid could land on your head
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: Arnold B. Krueger on 2017-04-22 15:06:33
Considering high bitrates you are about to use, it really doesn't matter which MODERN lossy codec you are about to use - so, why not using something that can be decoded by hardware, like aac? To conserve batteries.
IIRC, mpc is almost always decoded by software on mobile phones.

Are there actually any hardware decoders? Don't they net out to be software embedded in firmware running on more-or-less DSP-like or other computer hardware?  These lines seem to be pretty blurred to me. Can you give some factual examples to shed some light?
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: saratoga on 2017-04-22 15:26:35
True ASIC decoders aren't used anymore. On smartphones there is a highly power efficient DSP core  running a software decoder. This is what people mean by hardware.

On Android devices using Qualcomm hardware the decoder is a hexagon DSP. I'm not sure what Samsung uses in their exynos cores.
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: lothario15 on 2017-04-22 16:03:46
True ASIC decoders aren't used anymore. On smartphones there is a highly power efficient DSP core  running a software decoder. This is what people mean by hardware.

On Android devices using Qualcomm hardware the decoder is a hexagon DSP. I'm not sure what Samsung uses in their exynos cores.

When I bought a Galaxy S3, I was looking for Exynos DSP details but only bothered to go as far as digging up an ancient PDF for the 4412 Quad.  I don't remember it being too revealing.

OP: I recently ran my own little battery consumption test on a dusty, old Samsung i9305.  The Rockbox site already has oodles of data on decoding speeds of compression formats but I just wanted an idea of how different they could be on that old Exynos chipset.  I installed LineageOS and a solitary app (VLC) on the phone.  I charged to 100%, cleared all recent apps, turned off the radios.  Finally I pulled the cord out and played a single album.  I noted down Android's self-reported battery stats before recharging to 100%, clearing, etc. and running the test again.  Unfortunately, I didn't use MPC but I've attached the results to this post (LibreOffice ODS file).

Suffice to say, the differences are negligible and I suspect unnoticeable on a phone running many other processes so I wonder whether you concern yourself too much with battery consumption in your choice.
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: saratoga on 2017-04-22 16:22:50
All audio formats use negligible CPU power on a modern phone.  The reason a DSP is used is not to save CPU cycles, but rather to avoid having the CPU awake at all.  Turning it on and then having it sit there 99% idle wastes considerable power.
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: lothario15 on 2017-04-22 19:49:39
Indeedy.  Qualcomm annually sing the praises of the latest Hexagon offering on-board their Snapdragon but you rarely hear anything from your Samsungs, Mediateks or other ARM licensees.
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: itisljar on 2017-04-22 20:54:35
So... aac, then? :)
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: IgorC on 2017-04-22 22:22:17
chrome_waves,
Good start will be
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codec_listening_test
http://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=Hydrogenaudio_Listening_Tests
http://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=Private_Listening_Tests

MPC --standard or --extreme (180~210k) may be good choice. Its very fast and could be better quality than AAC /MP3 256~320k.  Mp3 has some technical limitations and AAC /OGG / opus have not had extensive testing or tuning at high bitrates.
False statements  and giving multiple claims in past without results of  ABX  tests that's a violation of  TOS8.
 
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: sauvage78 on 2017-04-23 04:29:58
could be better quality than AAC /MP3 256~320k
and an asteroid could land on your head

lol ... the first time Greynol makes me laught in 9 years ! ;)
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: IgorC on 2017-04-23 07:22:00
True ASIC decoders aren't used anymore. On smartphones there is a highly power efficient DSP core  running a software decoder. This is what people mean by hardware.

On Android devices using Qualcomm hardware the decoder is a hexagon DSP. I'm not sure what Samsung uses in their exynos cores.
Samsung uses very low power Cortex A5 for audio decoding.
http://www.samsung.com/semiconductor/minisite/Exynos/data/Low_Power_Audio_Subsystem_for_Samsung_Exynos_Processor.pdf
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: Case on 2017-04-23 07:54:55
Do audio playback apps use these power saving features and when they are used, can the playback be gapless or support ReplayGain?
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: shadowking on 2017-04-23 09:55:43
chrome_waves,
Good start will be
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codec_listening_test
http://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=Hydrogenaudio_Listening_Tests
http://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=Private_Listening_Tests

MPC --standard or --extreme (180~210k) may be good choice. Its very fast and could be better quality than AAC /MP3 256~320k.  Mp3 has some technical limitations and AAC /OGG / opus have not had extensive testing or tuning at high bitrates.
False statements  and giving multiple claims in past without results of  ABX  tests that's a violation of  TOS8.
 


No. Everything I said is spot on and references can be found in the forums historical posts. Enjoy your 32 - 128k world as many people have a lossless archive and use it this way (as it was intended). I don't need abx as I mentioned there may be potential advantages of mpc not that its outright better.

AAC, vorbis , opus have better technical specs than mp3/mpc  but require tuning so that quality scales well at higher bitrate. (See AAC  - emese sample & vorbis HF noise, GT3, AOTUV). Vorbis has had 3rd party work with some success (though AO isn't very keen on high bitrate tuning) , Opus is still new and AAC has many implementations .  MP3 has had many years to mature and fix the worst bugs. There has been interest in mid-high bitrates : --r3mix, --alt-presets, halb27-mods..   The remaining issues cannot be fixed due to formats limits . So it may very well be that mp3 is more abxable yet less annoying at high bitrates whereas something like aac,opus,vorbis  is less abxable yet more annoying in a rare case that a higher bitrate doesn't scale as well as it should.

Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: greynol on 2017-04-23 14:41:25
Quote
something like aac,opus,vorbis  is less abxable yet more annoying in a rare case that a higher bitrate doesn't scale as well as it should.
Talk is cheap. Feel free to demonstrate this with real world examples.

"I don't need to provide ABX since I'm using weasel words like may, could and potentially while also providing anecdotal evidence and other logical fallacies." 

Spoken like a true deluded, TOS8-evading placebophile zealot, shadowking.
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: shadowking on 2017-04-23 15:41:08
Quote
something like aac,opus,vorbis  is less abxable yet more annoying in a rare case that a higher bitrate doesn't scale as well as it should.
Talk is cheap. Feel free to demonstrate this with real world examples.

"I don't need to provide ABX since I'm using weasel words like may, could and potentially while also providing anecdotal evidence and other logical fallacies." 

Spoken like a true deluded, TOS8-evading placebophile zealot, shadowking.

Yep I did, lookup emese sample destroying nero AAC @ 350k abxed by myself confirmed by others. Handled extremely well by mpc --standard and even mp3 V2 was better than aac. What is not often abxable on mpc --standard doesn't sound like what aac did and they can be reduced / fixed with --xtreme or --insane.

Also, better isn't always subjective. The OP is interested in mpc.  I said mpc may be better and that can mean objective quality too. How does MP3 spend bits vs mpc ?  @ 200k mpc does better use of them not restricted to 320k frames and not impacted by the sfb21 issue that makes mp3 vbr  bloatfest @ V2 or higher.. though I think recent versions have improved it a bit but by possibly lowering accuracy of HF ?..   Anyway that issue of sfb21 and -Y has never  been fully settled and it only pertain to mp3 so mpc here gets a tick for efficiency (good for portable players).

Also there are many aac encoders using many methods. I understand Apple use some kind of CBR or constrained method @ 256 ~ 320k.  This tells me that its more of a marketing kludge trying to match mp3 than a true VBR mode because they don't / didn't have a stable one. If its true it confirms my theory that interest and tuning a) never happened b) some kind of instability was not worked out.  Because mpc quality 5 ..7 is smaller than some AAC cvbr 256..320 - it should have been AAC more efficient than mpc .
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: greynol on 2017-04-23 16:20:36
I said mpc may be better and that can mean objective quality too. How does MP3 spend bits vs mpc ?
That is irrelevant.  We are talking about audible sound quality of lossy compression and the only valid way to gauge it is though testing that controls external biases such as the assumption that one will sound better based on the way you imagine it allocates bits.

If all you have is an example of an outdated codec (Nero) and in unverified speculations about more modern codecs, you really have no business in this disussion.
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: shadowking on 2017-04-23 17:15:59
Yes it matters because almost certainly the OP would be told mp3 V2 and mpc -q5 are generally transparent (hes not interested in 128k). Whether he can abx or not doesn't diminish the fact that mpc would consume less space on the DAP especially for loud HF material.

Theres more examples i can dig up. You don't know that the AAC bug has been fully fixed and old doesn't mean worse especially with todays chaotic software development.
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: greynol on 2017-04-23 17:23:28
It's now officially a bug with the format because you deemed it as such? No, you're just stoking the fire with more unsubstantiatd paranoia. TOS8 is here to prevent wasting our time going down these rabbit holes.

Regarding mpc and consumption of space, there is no "fact".  Space is only loosely correlated to quality and there is only one proper method of testing to determine quality, despite your empty BS rhetoric about ABX not being necessary.
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: saratoga on 2017-04-23 17:39:36
Do audio playback apps use these power saving features and when they are used, can the playback be gapless or support ReplayGain?

As far as I know the stock Android libraries handle it automatically if you use them for decode. They are gapless but I don't know about replaygain. You should ask someone doing Android development though, I just looked at their source for codec optimization ideas.
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: IgorC on 2017-04-23 18:56:43
No. Everything I said ...
In my opinion greynol has clearly explained the rules. More clear impossible.
There is nothing really to add from my part.
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: chrome_waves on 2017-04-24 02:23:25
I have already been working on it a little, I chose to use mpc quality 10 (highest)
Using foobar to convert from flac
Hope I made the right decision
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: shadowking on 2017-04-24 02:55:01
I have already been working on it a little, I chose to use mpc quality 10 (highest)
Using foobar to convert from flac
Hope I made the right decision

MPC is generally transparent ( by design) at --quality 5 and even lower setting --quality 4.x can be very decent for portable use. Going lower than that it starts to show its limits and there are new codecs like aac, opus, vorbis ..

Anyway I was going to tell you before the other made a big noise over nothing:  Do a listening test of several tracks and start at --quality 5.  If you don't care for very high bitrate then --quality 10 without listening test is fine. Anything over --quality 7 is usually considered excessive .
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: shadowking on 2017-04-24 05:12:45
It's now officially a bug with the format because you deemed it as such? No, you're just stoking the fire with more unsubstantiatd paranoia. TOS8 is here to prevent wasting our time going down these rabbit holes.

Regarding mpc and consumption of space, there is no "fact".  Space is only loosely correlated to quality and there is only one proper method of testing to determine quality, despite your empty BS rhetoric about ABX not being necessary.

I don't know . I am talking about acceptable handling of problematic samples. MPC --standard is usually not annoying , abxable problems not very common and 180k .

Theres more cases and I believe this is still an issue:

https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,6023.msg62524.html#msg62524
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: greynol on 2017-04-24 05:16:44
2003?!?
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: chrome_waves on 2017-04-24 06:34:13
Hey guys i've gotta question about an error: on a couple tracks, foobar gives the conversion log with the following info:
3 tracks converted with major problems

song1.mpc - Corrupted FLAC stream

So these errors are corrupted flac stream errors. What does this mean? Should the tracks not be used for listening? I tried with dbpoweramp and I get the same errors on the same tracks.

I have some older mp3 versions of these tracks if it's better not to use the newly created mpc files
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: chrome_waves on 2017-04-30 03:25:41
After doing some reading I learned that the corrupted flac stream error with foobar can be due to different things. I listened to the songs in question but could not hear any abnormalities. Still, I went ahead and used a different source for those problem tracks.

Thanks everyone for all the input and recommendations it's making for interesting reading
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: Case on 2017-04-30 06:59:44
The FLAC files giving error messages most likely are corrupted but that message alone isn't enough to know what the problem is. Running such files through File Integrity Verifier (http://www.foobar2000.org/components/view/foo_verifier) component should give more information.
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: Porcus on 2017-04-30 11:08:12
Do audio playback apps use these power saving features and when they are used, can the playback be gapless or support ReplayGain?

Interesting question. I see there were a few battery/speed (I guess speed measures CPU cycles) discussions many years ago.

A claim like "sets a new standard for audiophiles" should normally trigger the HA laughing stock, eh?
https://www.qualcomm.com/news/snapdragon/2016/06/02/qualcomm-aqstic-sets-new-standard-audiophiles
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: guruboolez on 2017-04-30 15:30:30
MPC --standard or --extreme (180~210k) may be good choice. Its very fast and could be better quality than AAC /MP3 256~320k.  Mp3 has some technical limitations and AAC /OGG / opus have not had extensive testing or tuning at high bitrates.

[…]

Everything I said is spot on and references can be found in the forums historical posts. […]

AAC, vorbis , opus have better technical specs than mp3/mpc  but require tuning so that quality scales well at higher bitrate. (See AAC  - emese sample & vorbis HF noise, GT3, AOTUV). Vorbis has had 3rd party work with some success (though AO isn't very keen on high bitrate tuning) , Opus is still new and AAC has many implementations . 

I'm a bit surprised—and disappointed— to read this on HA.org nowadays. It was perfectly accepted in the first years of HA.org. But I far as I know, Musepack didn't improve quality since ~2003 when Frank Klemm worked on the encoder. On the meantime there were a continuous activity on LAME MP3, AAC (Apple) and Vorbis.

You mentioned HA archives. I remind to everyone my most difficult listening test I made at ~180 kbps on non-critical samples in 2005:
(http://audiotests.free.fr/tests/2005.08/HQ180/HQ180results.png)
—source (https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,36465.0.html)—
Musepack was clearly behind Vorbis at similar bitrate. It was twelve years ago, Musepack didn't improve while the other did (and in the meantime Opus appeared).

I also remind the existence of a serious flaw that affected (and still affects?) MPC and MPC only while encoding very quite samples which are either replaygained or played at high volume. The demonstration is now gone but the discussion is still —there (https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,35030.0.html)—.

Was it corrected since? It doesn't seem so according to the descriptions I can read at musepack.net (https://www.musepack.net/index.php?pg=new).

While MPC is still perfectly usable nowadays the format has lost to my ears all its magic more than ten years ago. It shines on some specific samples (pure pre-echo stuff) but on regular music I found it less impressive than Vorbis during careful and really hard listening comparison (which I probably can't perform again these days). I wouldn't use it at first place and rather go for AAC (Apple), Vorbis and maybe Opus.

I also insist: the listening test I mention is partially obsolete and is also based on my own sensitivity. AAC improved a lot in the meantime. But MPC didn't. It's a dead star... you can still see the light coming from but it's gone. Its excellent reputation come from days that don't exist either. There are better formats today.
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: butrus on 2017-05-01 11:24:28
On the meantime there were a continuous activity on LAME MP3, AAC (Apple) and Vorbis.

You forgot Opus (which is still being worked on and is according to the listening tests here on HA one of the best codecs nowadays).
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: guruboolez on 2017-05-01 12:24:31
You forgot Opus (which is still being worked on and is according to the listening tests here on HA one of the best codecs nowadays).
Not really:
It was twelve years ago, Musepack didn't improve while the other did (and in the meantime Opus appeared).
:)

As far as I know, Opus excellent quality is acknowledged on HA.org at low bitrate only. For high bitrate do we have enough tests and report to consider it as excellent as well?
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: shadowking on 2017-05-02 12:04:14
2003?!?

Modern times:
https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,109448.msg901009.html#msg901009
https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,77128.msg674479.html#msg674479
https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,112572.0.html
https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,102429.0.html

Theres still no major problem with musepack . As I pointed out issues at --quality 5 are 'contained' and usually solved or benign by quality 6 or 7 . OTOH posts confirm that issues persist in AAC and vorbis even @ 320k or more. Read other testers comments and they do not disagree with me a few years back.  Halb27 had similar impression although he thought there may be some possible issue.
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: shadowking on 2017-05-02 12:29:51
The 180k test of 2005 still suggest that musepack was/is excellent and had no major issues. Stranger the previous one of 2004 found it more favorable. Either in 1 year the other improved a lot or mpc regressed.. Either way all the data suggest to excellent performance in all tests against other codecs even in 128k segment. The low volume ringing issue is probably limited to certain situations and I think there was a switch to improve such samples. Quality has not been worked on since 2003 as pointed out although SV8 improves overall bitrate to be closer to the 1.14 encoder. Its possible that the SV8 format has some positive aspects inc sound quality.. Actually SV7 is still a fully supported format although not developed anymore.

This 'activity' by other codecs is more like bugfixes and incremental improvements rather than major ones. Major ones can also bring in regressions.  This would make them not too unlike musepack. Except for Opus which is newer expected to have more radical changes.
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: halb27 on 2017-05-02 21:41:19
I support shadowking's opinion that mpc is a mature codec which sound quality wise is still relevant today for the intended bitrates.

Roughly speaking other than for low to moderate bitrates it is hard to find hard arguments to prefer one good lossy encoder over another one simply because each of them provides great quality at higher bitrates for nearly every kind of music for nearly every listener. I remember the last public mp3 listening test @128 kbps which showed up very good quality even for this old codec at this moderate bitrate for most of the encoders tested.
Care must be taken if a person is especially sensitive towards certains aspects (as is /mnt for pre-echo; and in this case mpc is a favorable codec).

I dislike apreciating development for itself.
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: Porcus on 2017-05-03 13:49:20
The Musepack article on Wikipedia links to http://soundexpert.org/encoders-128-kbps . Blind testing on the basis of "download a random and upload your rating", but I have no idea when the majority of the results are from. But the issue is not whether Musepack is any good, but how it compares to the relevant alternatives (for Android playback, in this thread) - and largely, disregarding very odd demands.

-> Compatibility? No way. (If you transcode from WavPack or Monkey's and consider APE tags a compatibility thing, then that is an odd demand methinks.)
-> You use MPC elsewhere? Odd demand, like it or not.
-> Sound quality? TOS#8.
-> Battery efficiency? Show me the numbers.
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: shadowking on 2017-05-03 14:53:39
There were other 128k tests done here - see 'roberto 128 multi format..' . MPC was always at the top or close.

On the PC compatibility is a non-issue given many player support it native or via a plugin. Several players can be installed in 'portable' mode thus giving you mpc playback without needing to install anything.
On android the PowerAMP app and some others play it OOTB with replaygain / gapless - stuff that Google most likely doesn't support in their 'relevant' codecs. At least MPC and vorbis were designed gapless unlike mp3  / aac and this could be an issue - I read one poster here confirmed it in the threads I posted..   IOS - I don't have experience though I read there are similar players.

I have tested playback in Poweramp and everything went fine though I will give it another spin soon. The phone is an old galaxy S3. CPU was 12 % flac around 10 % , mp3 20%, wv lossy -x4 17%..FYI even monkeys audio played smoothly up to the high c3000 setting.

Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: shadowking on 2017-05-03 15:16:15
http://listening-tests.freetzi.com/html/128kbps_Extension_public_listening_test_results.htm
http://listening-tests.freetzi.com/html/Multiformat_128kbps_public_listening_test_results.htm
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: John Silver on 2017-05-03 22:29:03
Musepack q6 (or higher) is the best choice.
1. There is no pre-echo
2. Battery economy
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: KozmoNaut on 2017-05-04 10:09:21
2. Battery economy

Are there measurements to back this up? A lot of modern devices do MP3 decoding natively in extremely power-efficient ways.
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: Arnold B. Krueger on 2017-05-04 12:19:28
2. Battery economy

Are there measurements to back this up? A lot of modern devices do MP3 decoding natively in extremely power-efficient ways.

Are there really any such things as truly hardware MP3 encoders or decoders? Aren't they all specialized microprocessors or DSP executing microcode? Real world examples, please.

Here's an example: http://www.vlsi.fi/en/products/vs1063.html.  "VS1063 - MP3 / Ogg Vorbis Encoder and Audio Codec Circuit"  Obviously a specialized microcomputer with firmware on a chip. Here is the principles of operation manual including instruction set documentation. http://www.vlsi.fi/fileadmin/manuals_guides/vsdsp4_ump.pdf
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: Case on 2017-05-04 12:37:55
2. Battery economy
Are there measurements to back this up? A lot of modern devices do MP3 decoding natively in extremely power-efficient ways.
If you don't use a special low power DSP for certain format this is easy to test with the mobile foobar2000 that includes decode speed tester. The faster a format is to decode the less power its realtime playback requires from the CPU.

Note that mobile foobar2000 on Android for example can't utilize the supposed low power DSP method. It would mean handing over the playback for the OS and it can't do any of the features foobar2000 requires.

PS: I assume Google's Play Music uses the low-power DSP method for playing MP3s. It seems to fail a basic gaplessness test. Tested on a Nexus 6P running Android 7.1.2 beta.
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: John Silver on 2017-05-04 13:19:30
Most importantly, the quality of the Musepack is 192 kbps higher than that of the MP3 at the same speed.
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: KozmoNaut on 2017-05-04 13:58:14
Are there really any such things as truly hardware MP3 encoders or decoders? Aren't they all specialized microprocessors or DSP executing microcode? Real world examples, please.

I don't have any on hand, but early MP3 players certainly used dedicated hardware to decode MP3, such as the STA013: https://www.pjrc.com/mp3/sta013.html

Some still do, like the cheap Chinese MP3 player in my car. Very basic thing, only plays files in sequence from an SD card, no shuffle or any other features.

It's a dedicated chip, but maybe you would just call it a specialized microprocessor executing microcode. If that's your criteria, yes there are no 100% hardware decoders. I was thinking of dedicated chips running dedicated code.

But yes, what I meant is that modern smartphones etc. use power-efficient DSPs, and if a given codec is not able to be hardware decoded for whichever reason (not possible, not yet implemented, DSP cannot do it), it will be much less efficient to use.
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: IgorC on 2017-05-05 03:09:21
Complexity doesn't matter anymore these days.

I've tested relatively high complexity formats like  HE-AACv1(64 kbps) and Opus (128 kbps) pure software decoding on economic smarthpone with quad-core Cortex A7 (28 nm). It was on Rockbox Android version (I think it's still alpha).  Got 35+ hours of battery life! Of course, the test was done with display turned off. 
35 hours. It means 5 hours of music listening each day during whole week. Ridicuously right?

MP3, AAC, Musepack, Vorbis or whatever, your device will still consume considerably more power for display, wi-fi/LTE modem, background applicacionts, OS stuff, DAC and AMP themselves.

Musepack can be 1000% more power efficient than HE-AAC  however it doesn't translate in a better battery usage in real life.

 
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: Arnold B. Krueger on 2017-05-05 11:46:37
Are there really any such things as truly hardware MP3 encoders or decoders? Aren't they all specialized microprocessors or DSP executing microcode? Real world examples, please.

I don't have any on hand, but early MP3 players certainly used dedicated hardware to decode MP3, such as the STA013: https://www.pjrc.com/mp3/sta013.html

Some still do, like the cheap Chinese MP3 player in my car. Very basic thing, only plays files in sequence from an SD card, no shuffle or any other features.

It's a dedicated chip, but maybe you would just call it a specialized microprocessor executing microcode. If that's your criteria, yes there are no 100% hardware decoders. I was thinking of dedicated chips running dedicated code.

But yes, what I meant is that modern smartphones etc. use power-efficient DSPs, and if a given codec is not able to be hardware decoded for whichever reason (not possible, not yet implemented, DSP cannot do it), it will be much less efficient to use.

Actually, it is a chip with secrets. I couldn't tell enough from the doc I uncovered for it to tell much one way or the other.

However, I heartily thank you for the reference to investigate,,
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: Case on 2017-05-06 18:03:12
Codec power consumption seems to be more complex to estimate than just checking their decoding speed.

I used mobile foobar2000 on a Nexus 10 tablet to benchmark single threaded decoding speed of various codecs and compared battery use between the slowest lossy format and the fastest. Slowest turned out to be Opus and the fastest was AAC. With the album I tested Opus decoding speed was 108 times realtime speed and AAC was 330 times realtime speed.

I didn't test how long the battery can last until it's empty as that would have taken days. I played both formats under the same conditions for 8 hours 38 minutes and checked the battery level reported by the OS afterwards.

With AAC foobar2000 had used 9% of battery and remaining battery level was at 88%.
With Opus foobar2000 battery consumption was 7% and battery capacity was at 91%.

Perhaps Opus won the test because its bitrate was almost 50% lower than the AAC files. Average for the AACs was 127 kbps and for Opus 67 kbps.
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: IgorC on 2017-05-06 19:04:29
Case, interesting and actually useful data.

That's why I prefer to use real life tests. Benchmarking of decoding speed isn't just representative of battery usage.
And a lot of people have already labeled HE-AAC and Opus formats as "slow" and "power hungry". And it's simply not case.

Probably higher bitrate consumes more power because of reading more data  from microSD and loading it to memory.
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: greynol on 2017-05-06 20:20:43
More reason not to use archaic formats at bloated bitrates, even if they can be shown to be superior with 10+ year old test data by people who have not demonstrated any personal listening acuity against codecs/formats that have since received major attention in the way of development.
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: saratoga on 2017-05-06 22:52:23
Perhaps Opus won the test because its bitrate was almost 50% lower than the AAC files. Average for the AACs was 127 kbps and for Opus 67 kbps.

I wouldn't say that Opus won that test, as the results are probably similar to within the margin of error.  What you are actually measuring is some tiny difference in power consumption between the decoders on top of a relatively large fixed power consumption just from having the CPU awake and running foobar.    

FWIW, if you want to measure power consumption of codecs on portable devices, I recommend using either a precision current meter, doing a 0-100% battery test, or if you don't want to do a 100% test, log the battery voltage while decoding and then compare to a reference discharge curve.  For rockbox I've usually used the 0-100% method on a spare device, although sometimes I use a current meter if I want to know something very accurately. 

And a lot of people have already labeled HE-AAC and Opus formats as "slow" and "power hungry". And it's simply not case.

Opus isn't slow (its similar to MP3 in my experience, maybe a bit faster).  AAC-HE is actually slower (probably 2-2.5x higher complexity due to the QMF).  But both of these formats are relatively fast in an absolute sense, and very likely to be decoded by a DSP on a newer Android device rather than the CPU. 
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: saratoga on 2017-05-06 23:03:09
Are there really any such things as truly hardware MP3 encoders or decoders? Aren't they all specialized microprocessors or DSP executing microcode? Real world examples, please.

I don't have any on hand, but early MP3 players certainly used dedicated hardware to decode MP3, such as the STA013: https://www.pjrc.com/mp3/sta013.html

Some still do, like the cheap Chinese MP3 player in my car. Very basic thing, only plays files in sequence from an SD card, no shuffle or any other features.

It's a dedicated chip, but maybe you would just call it a specialized microprocessor executing microcode. If that's your criteria, yes there are no 100% hardware decoders. I was thinking of dedicated chips running dedicated code.

Most of those are based on the ATJ212X series of processors.  They are a MIPS CPU for the OS, and a 24 bit DSP derived from (IIRC) the ADSP-218x series from analog devices.  They don't run microcode exactly, both the CPU and DSP are general purpose processors running normal code.  They're just highly optimized for audio decoding including onboard SRAM and code execution directly from ROM (to further save memory).  Most don't even have DRAM. 

Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: halb27 on 2017-05-07 07:33:22
More reason not to use archaic formats at bloated bitrates, .....
?????
Case's 8.5 h test shows a battery usage of 7% vs. 9%. IgorC's test also shows the irrelevance of looking at battery life when deciding upon a codec. And these are the only hard facts given here concerning battery life.

I think other than for very special reasons (which a particular person might have) nobody has to really care about
The device support may be the most crucial decision factor, but at least in the near future it is not a limiting factor for most people. As long as a lossless archive is available and one is willing to reencode this can never be a problem for the future.

So what we usually see is people figthing for their personal preferences:

None of them is wrong, they are all right. Everybody does his choice according to his nature.
We can always find arguments for our personal preferences, but we should not think they are valid for other people.

So as for the OP's question:

I think nobody has given here a strong reason not to use mpc at moderate to high bitrates.
I think the most relevant argument to be considered by the OP is whether he wants to use a codec which is to be considered exotic. This might be a problem in the future under the aspect of device support. Not a problem when willing to reencode from a lossless archive as said before.
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: Porcus on 2017-05-08 07:39:07
I think the most relevant argument to be considered by the OP is whether he wants to use a codec which is to be considered exotic.

Seems to me that my best reason to choose .mpc for portable use, would be that then I know at a glance what files are transcodes. (Since I do not use it for anything else.)
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: shadowking on 2017-05-10 14:47:47
As long as one doesn't blindly upgrade software and hardware compatibility should not be a major problem.

- Use open formats when possible
- Make notes of your system setup and application versions etc
- Save older and current installers, APK's etc
- Make portable (usb) installations of important apps if permitted
- Keep spare parts / older hardware (pc , nbook, players, phones etc)
- Read changelogs before upgrading anything critical
- If using binary closed formats / apps make sure USB installs can be done easy and no activation mechanism or CP is used.  Older serial number method without activation is OK if you can install it easily with the given code.
- Create VM of a current or older OS.

With mpc take care with SV8 as it is not backwards compatible with SV7 decoders. This may present issues with older players / OS etc.
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: KozmoNaut on 2017-05-10 15:01:20
Or you know, just use a format that is widely supported now, and extremely likely to be widely supported for a long time, without having to expend any effort to keep old software versions going?
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: Porcus on 2017-05-10 15:21:16
As long as one doesn't blindly upgrade software and hardware compatibility should not be a major problem.
Does a computer crash count as "blind" upgrade? It does happen every now and then.

Or you know, just use a format that is widely supported now, and extremely likely to be widely supported for a long time, without having to expend any effort to keep old software versions going?
Staying lossless if I can. As long as one keeps an eye on support (i.e. does not live under a stone until the last Shorten decoder has disappeared from the Internet), one can convert losslessly.

I think RealAudio was "widely supported", and - being backed by the BBC - appeared likely to be "widely supported for a long time" as well. I have a few ancient downloads in that pesky format with the cook codec, which AFAIK fits nothing sensible. Because it is lossy, I keep them. So for the couple of ADPCM-in-WAV files I have, and there are quite a few .WMAs as well.

And of course I keep my MP2s, MP3s and AACs as they are, unless I need to remux or repair.

Video ... If I encounter .ASF or .AVI videos I would like to watch more frequently, I try to remux them. (And .MPG/.MPEG too, just because of fb2k.)


Seems to me that my best reason to choose .mpc for portable use, would be that then I know at a glance what files are transcodes. (Since I do not use it for anything else.)
Hey ... I could use it for the Real Audio files. Keeping the original. If an .mpc file sounds annoying, I can always ditch it and go for a higher quality ... or most likely, the annoyances would be Real Audio encoding artifacts anyway ...
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: shadowking on 2017-05-10 15:52:57
Computer crash..  keep backup *hardware*.  Anyway in windows despite all the cosmetic mess compatibility is still mostly intact. I can probably use winamp 2.xx with sv7 on win 10 and vice versa say XP , recent FB2k and sv8.

 People use non-standard non-open  RAR and others even more than 7zip. it never stopped people.  At least with open-specs theres a better chances of someone writing a plugin, player, viewer etc..

Adopting latest and greatest.  Software development is chaotic nowadays. The whole rapid release stuff is causing instability and unwanted changes. (MS, libreoffice, mozilla, google etc). Sooner or later your gonna hit a wall and not recognize computing as you knew it unless you have a fall back plan as I suggested .
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: KozmoNaut on 2017-05-10 16:20:17
I think RealAudio was "widely supported", and - being backed by the BBC - appeared likely to be "widely supported for a long time" as well.

But it wasn't widely adopted and loved by the users.

In contrast, MP3 is the standard format for most legal download services (if they don't offer lossless, which is usually FLAC) as well the de facto standard lossy format for less-than-legal filesharing. Storage and bandwidth are cheap, noone cares about the size difference between 320kbps and 160kbps anymore.

If you stay with MP3 or FLAC, it's extremely unlikely that support will ever be lost.
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: Porcus on 2017-05-10 22:07:57
Computer crash..  keep backup *hardware*. 

You really need to outright love obsolete lossy formats if you are willing to maintain a working-order set of computers to be safe that they can be used. I would rather keep another lossless. An 8 TB hard drive is enough for most.

That said, I do keep a couple of computers with FireWire just because I have FireWire devices, and I even have a mirrored hard drive with a freshly installed and then updated the day before Windows XP support expired - but I do not cherish any Real Audio-thingy enough to want to keep another set of computers. If for some stupid reason I had my life in Real Audio, then I would have tried to keep it usable, but it is better to stick to something that is going to stay.

People use non-standard non-open  RAR and others even more than 7zip. it never stopped people.
They are lossless, just like Shorten and FLAC. If you store as .rar and .7z, you can migrate your files to something different when support dwindles - over and over again.  By the way, RAR decoding is open source (http://www.rarlab.com/rar_add.htm), although I certainly prefer the openness of 7-zip.
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: shadowking on 2017-05-11 04:58:42
What are obsolete lossy formats ? mpc is open and not limited to the PC as was a decade ago.  mpc can be transcoded to make smaller mp3 / aac without much issues . It can be transcoded to lossless format if needed. BTW real player is still maintained.

What you guys are talking is the periods to the 80-90's where most was closed formats (RA) / hardware undergoing rapid changes .  This is not happening today much. The PC architecture is left intact while mobile area is maturing. Upgrade cycles are longer.  Apple had a major transition 15 years ago and since are stable. Windows can still run a lot of win9x era apps and even win 3.1 era using the 32bit version.

Support doesn't dwindle over and over anymore..  This USED to be the case in 80s ~ 00.
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: shadowking on 2017-05-11 05:38:16
The problem today is all the rapid release mentality.  The developers want to break apps  / libraries all the time and expect things like codecs and plugins to be modified in order to remain compatible .  Having lots of codecs, plugins , extensions is another example thats pissing them as it would have been easier just to make them disappear.
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: KozmoNaut on 2017-05-11 08:44:04
What are obsolete lossy formats ? mpc is open and not limited to the PC as was a decade ago.  mpc can be transcoded to make smaller mp3 / aac without much issues . It can be transcoded to lossless format if needed. BTW real player is still maintained.

Why would you ever transcode a lossy format to lossless?
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: Porcus on 2017-05-11 10:48:02
What are obsolete lossy formats ? mpc is open and not limited to the PC as was a decade ago.  mpc can be transcoded to make smaller mp3 / aac without much issues . It can be transcoded to lossless format if needed. BTW real player is still maintained.

Why would you ever transcode a lossy format to lossless?

If you have to, in order to play it on a different device - or in order to transcode to lossy? The good thing is to avoid the problem and keep the lossless source, but sometimes you are stuck with files someone else decoded.
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: shadowking on 2017-05-11 12:36:09
Staying with standards don't guarantee stability :
https://s7.postimg.org/b8n56jkgr/codecs2016.png

You see many are migrating from one to the next While vorbis, mpc are steady. 

MS Word was  / is a 'de facto' standard. How many iterations of the .doc format and now .docx where there ?? many of them totally incompatible.  In contrast wordpad and other RTF / text editors remained steady out of the spotlight without enduring this.  Even a simple ODT  document opens fine in openoffice 1.1 from 2003 without needing any converters.

Migrating many TB's of data for popularity sake regularly is silly even dangerous.
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: KozmoNaut on 2017-05-11 12:40:28
Staying with standards don't guarantee stability :
https://s7.postimg.org/b8n56jkgr/codecs2016.png

That graph is the result of polling Hydrogenaudio members, who are generally geeky and a lot more interested in new formats than the average Joe.

That this segment of users decides to migrate to newer formats does nothing to diminish the universal support for older formats, such as MP3.
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: shadowking on 2017-05-11 13:12:04
The 'universal' mp3 doesn't guarantee anything. When the corporate world will have enough of it for whatever reason they will transcode your collections via some 'auto-tool' to something else like aac or some drm-codec.  I believe at a time this was standard in WMP or Itunes.
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: KozmoNaut on 2017-05-11 13:17:35
That sounds like a crazy conspiracy theory to me.

I am not aware of any automatic transcoding being performed in WMP nor in iTunes.

And that doesn't adress the widespread use of MP3 by illegal up/downloaders.
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: shadowking on 2017-05-11 13:21:24
There was a time that a collection was auto-transcoded to MS wma or apple aac I can't remember which player it was. There was an option to turn it off but it was on by default.
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: KozmoNaut on 2017-05-11 13:35:23
"Auto-transcoded", or transcoded after specifically asking the user whether he wanted to transcode WMA files to AAC? (which I think iTunes would ask to do, as iPods cannot play WMA files).

Remember the cases where people whined that Apple Music deleted their collections? In every case, they had answered "Yes" when asked whether they wanted their local collection deleted after matching it to Apple Music.

In other words, it was perfectly ordinary user error, and it's a non-issue for anyone who doesn't just blindly click "yes" to every dialog box.
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: shadowking on 2017-05-11 14:43:08
No asking. They prompted that media files where found and do you wish to 'import' them.
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: shadowking on 2017-05-11 15:05:39
Most non geeks wouldn't notice after all the player will play the music.  On a different note try upload a txt, rtf, doc, odt file to MS online / google drives and see what you get back.
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: KozmoNaut on 2017-05-11 15:19:10
No asking. They prompted that media files where found and do you wish to 'import' them.

ITunes specifically asks you whether you actually want to do this. No, it doesn't show all kinds of warnings about transcoding, but it does specifically tell you what it's going to do (transcode to MP3 or AAC) and lets you cancel the action. And it only happens if you specifically add incompatible formats to your library.

You seem to be extremely invested in continued to use a lossy format with extremely spotty application support and no active development, even going so far as to have elaborate update rituals to keep using it. For no real reason other than sheer stubbornness.

The sheer market penetration of MP3 means its users will never have to face this problem, and the quality at -V0 or 320kbps is comfortably beyond the limits of human hearing.
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: Porcus on 2017-05-11 15:25:27
Keep calm & carry on - and make sure in advance, that you can keep on carrying on calmly.

KozmoNaut:
There was indeed an iTunes bug that deleted what should not have been deleted. But more crucially, license agreements are written so that nobody reads them anyway, and Microsoft did once push WMP "update" where deep down there was a clause that allowed WMP to change the entire operating system and throw out competition. Sounds like a conspiracy theory? Not if you know Apple's and Microsoft's track records. Hey, even the Windows 10 "upgrade" and spyware ...

But that is not going to kill mp3.  There are too many files out there, and mp3 is a lossy format (meaning, one cannot freely migrate existing files). And now patents have expired as well. Even if some other format (AAC?) should happen to take over file lossy file sales - or (more likely!), lossy files for sale is reduced to a niche product - then that is not enough to kill off mp3.

But MPC? Why even recommend it for anything but disposable files? Just did a little websearch for πr8ed discographies and found twenty times as many hits with WMA than with MPC - and that was for BTs where the indexers keep magnets for stuff that has not been found in ten years. And that is MPC vs WMA. Less than half a percent of my lossy audio files are WMA, despite not having attempted to get rid of them (tracking down other formats ... could be hard for old demos).

And the WMA and Vorbis codecs will stay on because there is a lot of video encoded with them. Well I am not so sure about Vorbis, because Google/Youtube will reconvert whenever it suits them, right?
Title: [TOS #8] Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: shadowking on 2017-05-11 15:52:26
The mp3 VBR (and to a lesser extent aac) may fall over even on natural string music like NIghtwish . In contrast mpc default mode handled it excellent.

How many apps or players does one need ?
https://www.musepack.net/index.php?pg=pro
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: halb27 on 2017-05-11 17:03:26
Does this apply also to my lame2995o variant using the new -Q option?
I did my best to cover exactly such issues.
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: greynol on 2017-05-11 17:08:28
The mp3 VBR (and to a lesser extent aac) may fall over even on natural string music like NIghtwish . In contrast mpc default mode handled it excellent.
ABX log, please.
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: KozmoNaut on 2017-05-11 18:54:09
The mp3 VBR (and to a lesser extent aac) may fall over even on natural string music like NIghtwish . In contrast mpc default mode handled it excellent.

I'll second the request for ABX logs, because I have yet to rip a CD that didn't turn out 100% transparent* at -V3 or above, probably -V4 or even -V5 for a lot of it.

* To me, of course.

Quote
How many apps or players does one need ?
https://www.musepack.net/index.php?pg=pro

How many hardware players are on that list? Handheld players? Car stereos? DVD/Bluray players? Game consoles?
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: ChronoSphere on 2017-05-11 21:52:06
On topic of power consumption, back in my Rockbox/Sansa Clip+ days I did a comparison of various codecs and mpc won (https://www.dropbox.com/s/b065pbif49xdz9a/battery_bench_summary.txt?dl=0). When I got a smartphone, I tested again, and couldn't replicate the results. Though, one thing I noticed was that while playing mp3 with all the radios off made the CPU spike to 3 cores @1200Mhz (out of 8), vorbis mpc and opus only raised the clock to 800Mhz, and only on 2 cores.

So it seems that at least on smartphones, battery consumption is not really all that different between the codecs, as others have suggested in the thread.

In my experience, there are some problems with players handling the built-in replay gain of Opus, for example goneMAD player does  not detect the file as having replay gain and plays all files 5db quieter than it should.

Vorbis and MP3 are well supported (did not test AAC), so you can just use built-in apps, while mpc, opus and wavpack lossy often require paid apps. Sometimes even buying the app is not enough: the files play, but covers randomly disappear or replaygain tags are not being detected. Some devs are responsive and fix the issues if you take the time to report them - goneMAD doesn't have those issues now, I'm using it for playing wavpack lossy daily.

On topic of car stereos: the one in my Mazda 2 (2016) supports mp3 and vorbis, but the built-in player is horrible. It sorts by date added, not filename, for one. Shuffle also resets if you decide to skip a song. It also has a tendency to restart randomly if there is a file on your USB drive it doesn't like - for whatever reason. On the other hand, playback via bluetooth is flawless. Point being, I don't miss the compatibility of MP3/AAC as long as I can somehow connect my phone to the speakers.
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: shadowking on 2017-05-12 03:39:49
Does this apply also to my lame2995o variant using the new -Q option?
I did my best to cover exactly such issues.

I think your version handled it fine.
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: greynol on 2017-05-12 03:48:09
You "think" a lot of things, though I don't see for the life of me why and of it is worth the time of day.  ;)

Any more unsubstantiated fear mongering over your lossy encodes of Nightwish, or can you finally be done?

ABX logs will be welcome at any time; however, continued garbage like your previous post won't.
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: shadowking on 2017-05-12 04:28:47
https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,55340.msg807537.html#msg807537
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: greynol on 2017-05-12 04:42:31
So you're now playing surrogate? You'll have to do better than that.  Maybe you can get the skilled listener to test MPC as well as AAC (even if to a "lesser extent", which doesn't mean 4/4 ;)).

In the meantime, where are your ABX results?
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: shadowking on 2017-05-12 05:02:38
Thats just rubbish . ITS WAS MY SAMPLE.  The problems are so obvious confirmed by other and a lame developer. I am not gonna bother.

I am not playing the political correct crap.
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: shadowking on 2017-05-12 05:07:41
LAME 3.99.5 -V2  -UGLY

foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.0.3
2017/05/12 14:19:29

File A: G:\Hdd-2\music\abx\mp3\05 - Angels Fall First-ringing.flac
File B: G:\Hdd-2\music\abx\mp3\05 - Angels Fall First-ringing.mp3

14:19:29 : Test started.
14:19:41 : 01/01  50.0%
14:19:45 : 02/02  25.0%
14:19:48 : 03/03  12.5%
14:19:51 : 04/04  6.3%
14:19:54 : 05/05  3.1%
14:19:56 : 06/06  1.6%
14:19:59 : 07/07  0.8%
14:20:01 : 08/08  0.4%
14:20:05 : Test finished.

 ----------
Total: 8/8 (0.4%)

GO AWAY WITH YOUR PC CRAP
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: shadowking on 2017-05-12 05:19:30
MPC 1.30.0  --standard - guessing.

foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.0.3
2017/05/12 14:28:52

File A: G:\Hdd-2\music\abx\mp3\05 - Angels Fall First-ringing.flac
File B: G:\Hdd-2\music\05 - Angels Fall First-ringing.mpc

14:28:52 : Test started.
14:29:02 : 00/01  100.0%
14:29:15 : 01/02  75.0%
14:29:31 : 02/03  50.0%
14:29:51 : 02/04  68.8%
14:30:06 : 03/05  50.0%
14:30:11 : 03/06  65.6%
14:30:45 : 04/07  50.0%
14:30:54 : 04/08  63.7%
14:30:56 : Test finished.

 ----------
Total: 4/8 (63.7%)
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: greynol on 2017-05-12 05:19:40
Lame 3.84 @V0, or the current version if that's too hard for you to muster.

You will still need to ABX AAC in order to keep your initial post from being binned for violating TOS8.
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: shadowking on 2017-05-12 05:30:22
LAME -V0 3.98.4

foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.0.3
2017/05/12 14:40:03

File A: G:\Hdd-2\music\abx\mp3\05 - Angels Fall First-ringing.flac
File B: G:\Hdd-2\music\abx\mp3\05 - Angels Fall First-ringing.mp3

14:40:03 : Test started.
14:40:15 : 00/01  100.0%
14:41:00 : 01/02  75.0%
14:41:16 : 02/03  50.0%
14:41:23 : 03/04  31.3%
14:41:29 : 04/05  18.8%
14:41:34 : 05/06  10.9%
14:41:40 : 06/07  6.3%
14:41:46 : 07/08  3.5%
14:41:55 : Test finished.

 ----------
Total: 7/8 (3.5%)
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: greynol on 2017-05-12 05:38:46
Better, but still not quite there yet.
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: shadowking on 2017-05-12 05:48:38
 My impressions then were based on nero aac in 2007 (128~180k were less annoying than mp3 @ similar bitrate.) . So I'll need to set it up again.
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: greynol on 2017-05-12 05:53:47
So you can't demonstrate that, as a format, either mp3 (lame2995o) or AAC (something developed in the last decade) is incapable of encoding your killer sample without  audible artifacts. Got it.

Better luck next time.
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: shadowking on 2017-05-12 06:03:36
AAC - NERO 128K VBR Q0.40 - UGLY similar to mp3 artifact
foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.0.3
2017/05/12 15:08:21

File A: G:\Hdd-2\music\abx\mp3\05 - Angels Fall First-ringing.flac
File B: G:\Hdd-2\music\abx\mp3\05 - Angels Fall First-ringing.m4a

15:08:21 : Test started.
15:08:32 : 01/01  50.0%
15:08:34 : 02/02  25.0%
15:08:36 : 03/03  12.5%
15:08:39 : 04/04  6.3%
15:08:41 : 05/05  3.1%
15:08:43 : 06/06  1.6%
15:08:45 : 07/07  0.8%
15:08:47 : 08/08  0.4%
15:08:49 : Test finished.

 ----------
Total: 8/8 (0.4%)

@ Q.50 ~ 175k - I stopped at  3/5   .  Theres a lot of construction noise around my place . I will try later again @ 160k then .180k.
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: greynol on 2017-05-12 06:04:28
No one cares about Nero from 2007.
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: shadowking on 2017-05-12 06:08:17
Nero Q0.45 - still there not too hard. better than V2 lame IMO

foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.0.3
2017/05/12 15:18:38

File A: G:\Hdd-2\music\abx\mp3\05 - Angels Fall First-ringing.flac
File B: G:\Hdd-2\music\abx\mp3\05 - Angels Fall First-ringing.m4a

15:18:38 : Test started.
15:18:45 : 00/01  100.0%
15:18:55 : 01/02  75.0%
15:19:36 : 02/03  50.0%
15:19:42 : 03/04  31.3%
15:19:48 : 04/05  18.8%
15:19:50 : 05/06  10.9%
15:19:59 : 06/07  6.3%
15:20:07 : 07/08  3.5%
15:20:22 : Test finished.

 ----------
Total: 7/8 (3.5%)
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: greynol on 2017-05-12 06:10:47
So you can't demonstrate that, as a format, either mp3 (lame2995o) or AAC (something developed in the last decade) is incapable of encoding your killer sample without  audible artifacts. Got it.
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: shadowking on 2017-05-12 06:17:12
So you can't demonstrate that, as a format, either mp3 (lame2995o) or AAC (something developed in the last decade) is incapable of encoding your killer sample without  audible artifacts. Got it.[/quot

Re]

When I get a hold of a current aac I'll let you know.  Anyway it was not to JUST show that but to show the MPC  STILL has no major problems AVG 170-180k without needing mp3 V0 can be 276k and still not as good.

Lame 3.99o is NOT OFFICIAL - though a good performer in some areas.  But its different -  has CBR like behaviour with much higher bitrate on mono like material.
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: shadowking on 2017-05-12 06:22:19
BTW when i do find a latest aac I expect 130k to be perfect or not annoying . I will also compare to MPC  --radio
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: shadowking on 2017-05-12 06:33:45
MPC --radio -140k - I thought there was a problem but its harder. IMO better than nero 0.4 and 0.45

foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.0.3
2017/05/12 15:41:46

File A: G:\Hdd-2\music\abx\mp3\05 - Angels Fall First-ringing.flac
File B: G:\Hdd-2\music\05 - Angels Fall First-ringing.mpc

15:41:46 : Test started.
15:42:00 : 01/01  50.0%
15:42:13 : 02/02  25.0%
15:42:17 : 03/03  12.5%
15:42:19 : 03/04  31.3%
15:42:29 : 03/05  50.0%
15:42:47 : 04/06  34.4%
15:42:53 : 05/07  22.7%
15:43:01 : 06/08  14.5%
15:43:24 : Test finished.

 ----------
Total: 6/8 (14.5%)
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: shadowking on 2017-05-12 06:36:35
Yeah so when i find a cutting edge aac. Its has to be better than mpc --radio which is considered unoptimized. So far mpc --radio is much better than nero at mid bitrate which it should excel at.
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: Case on 2017-05-12 06:37:33
I hate to say this but foo_abx v1.x series allows easily "cheating" by focusing on irrelevant differences like a single peaking sample. Differences discernible with v2.0.2 would be more relevant.
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: shadowking on 2017-05-12 06:45:00
So now its cheating. Add all the mpc scores and add the mp3/acc scores. combine them. See pattern ?
Good to know i will try the latest abx.   Cant cheat 8/8 twice in an hour (even once is close to impossible  - you can get 6/8 and  rarely 7/8 by random clicking).   Anyway the problem is so bad at aac / mp3 130k and even V2 than I don't even need to be in an abx session. Its audible with pc speakers .
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: greynol on 2017-05-12 06:53:51
I'm sure he isn't cheating, but I do see goalpost moving.

mp3 is capable of being more than adequate for the killer sample example and we're awaiting aac results using a codec that is relevant.

I am glad to finally see an act of good faith, however.
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: Case on 2017-05-12 06:57:30
I didn't say that. Just stated a known problem. I for example can't hear small pre-echo as it's masked by the sound it's from but I could detect it by stopping the playback before the masking sound.
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: greynol on 2017-05-12 06:59:57
That's good to know.  Thanks, Case.
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: Case on 2017-05-12 07:20:27
shadowking, you can find state-of-the-art AAC encoder in iTunes. No need to install it if you use qaac and the makeportable script from here (https://sites.google.com/site/qaacpage/cabinet).
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: Porcus on 2017-05-12 07:33:33
awaiting aac results using a codec that is relevant.

Come on, MP3 is "relevant".

Edit: or, you meant "encoder"?
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: Arnold B. Krueger on 2017-05-12 11:27:03
Anybody who wants to duplicate these results can download the reference Flacs from here:

Shadowking's "Killer samples" (https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,75868.msg665542.html#msg665542)

Just trying to save people the research going back to 2009.
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: PoisonDan on 2017-05-12 12:33:18
awaiting aac results using a codec that is relevant.

Come on, MP3 is "relevant".

Edit: or, you meant "encoder"?
It looks like you missed the previous posts. The complaint is about Nero AAC being used instead of a more relevant AAC encoder like the one from Apple or Fraunhofer.
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: shadowking on 2017-05-12 15:03:00
EMESE SAMPLE -  QAAC 2.62

130K

foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.0.3
2017/05/12 23:58:16

File A: G:\Hdd-2\music\abx\mp3\emese.wav
File B: G:\Hdd-2\music\abx\mp3\emese.m4a

23:58:16 : Test started.
23:58:34 : 01/01  50.0%
23:58:40 : 01/02  75.0%
23:58:41 : Trial reset.
23:58:44 : 01/01  50.0%
23:58:46 : 02/02  25.0%
23:58:48 : 03/03  12.5%
23:58:49 : 04/04  6.3%
23:58:51 : 05/05  3.1%
23:58:53 : 06/06  1.6%
23:58:54 : 07/07  0.8%
23:58:56 : 08/08  0.4%
23:59:04 : 09/09  0.2%
23:59:14 : Test finished.

 ----------
Total: 10/11 (0.6%)

160K

foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.0.3
2017/05/12 23:59:44

File A: G:\Hdd-2\music\abx\mp3\emese.wav
File B: G:\Hdd-2\music\abx\mp3\emese.m4a

23:59:44 : Test started.
23:59:54 : 01/01  50.0%
23:59:56 : 02/02  25.0%
23:59:59 : 03/03  12.5%
00:00:01 : 04/04  6.3%
00:00:04 : 05/05  3.1%
00:00:06 : 06/06  1.6%
00:00:09 : 07/07  0.8%
00:00:11 : 08/08  0.4%
00:00:13 : Test finished.

 ----------
Total: 8/8 (0.4%)


190k

foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.0.3
2017/05/13 00:00:38

File A: G:\Hdd-2\music\abx\mp3\emese.wav
File B: G:\Hdd-2\music\abx\mp3\emese.m4a

00:00:38 : Test started.
00:00:46 : 01/01  50.0%
00:00:48 : 02/02  25.0%
00:00:50 : 03/03  12.5%
00:00:52 : 04/04  6.3%
00:00:55 : 05/05  3.1%
00:00:57 : 06/06  1.6%
00:01:03 : 07/07  0.8%
00:01:19 : 08/08  0.4%
00:01:24 : Test finished.

 ----------
Total: 8/8 (0.4%)


220k

foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.0.3
2017/05/13 00:02:11

File A: G:\Hdd-2\music\abx\mp3\emese.wav
File B: G:\Hdd-2\music\abx\mp3\emese.m4a

00:02:11 : Test started.
00:02:37 : 01/01  50.0%
00:02:59 : 02/02  25.0%
00:03:13 : 03/03  12.5%
00:03:19 : 04/04  6.3%
00:03:24 : 05/05  3.1%
00:03:31 : 06/06  1.6%
00:03:45 : 07/07  0.8%
00:03:52 : 08/08  0.4%
00:03:54 : Test finished.

 ----------
Total: 8/8 (0.4%)

Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: shadowking on 2017-05-12 15:05:01
EMESE SAMPLE -  MPC 1.30

--RADIO

foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.0.3
2017/05/13 00:08:10

File A: G:\Hdd-2\music\abx\mp3\emese.wav
File B: G:\Hdd-2\music\abx\mp3\emese.mpc

00:08:10 : Test started.
00:08:32 : 01/01  50.0%
00:08:46 : 01/02  75.0%
00:09:19 : 01/03  87.5%
00:09:35 : 01/04  93.8%
00:09:56 : 01/05  96.9%
00:10:15 : 02/06  89.1%
00:10:22 : 03/07  77.3%
00:10:30 : 03/08  85.5%
00:10:31 : Test finished.

 ----------
Total: 3/8 (85.5%)

--STANDARD

foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.0.3
2017/05/13 00:05:34

File A: G:\Hdd-2\music\abx\mp3\emese.wav
File B: G:\Hdd-2\music\abx\mp3\emese.mpc

00:05:34 : Test started.
00:05:44 : 01/01  50.0%
00:05:50 : 01/02  75.0%
00:05:59 : 02/03  50.0%
00:06:08 : 03/04  31.3%
00:06:49 : 04/05  18.8%
00:07:02 : 04/06  34.4%
00:07:15 : 05/07  22.7%
00:07:32 : 06/08  14.5%
00:07:36 : Test finished.

 ----------
Total: 6/8 (14.5%)
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: shadowking on 2017-05-12 15:06:03
ANGELS FALL FIRST - 130K QAAC 2.62 - V80 TVBR

foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.0.3
2017/05/12 23:43:42

File A: G:\Hdd-2\music\abx\mp3\05 - Angels Fall First-ringing.flac
File B: G:\Hdd-2\music\abx\mp3\05 - Angels Fall First-ringing.m4a

23:43:42 : Test started.
23:44:16 : 01/01  50.0%
23:44:34 : 02/02  25.0%
23:44:46 : 03/03  12.5%
23:45:17 : 04/04  6.3%
23:45:24 : 05/05  3.1%
23:46:10 : 06/06  1.6%
23:47:05 : 07/07  0.8%
23:49:05 : 08/08  0.4%
23:49:09 : Test finished.

 ----------
Total: 8/8 (0.4%)

** PREVIOUSLY: MPC --RADIO **

foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.0.3
2017/05/12 15:41:46

File A: G:\Hdd-2\music\abx\mp3\05 - Angels Fall First-ringing.flac
File B: G:\Hdd-2\music\05 - Angels Fall First-ringing.mpc

15:41:46 : Test started.
15:42:00 : 01/01  50.0%
15:42:13 : 02/02  25.0%
15:42:17 : 03/03  12.5%
15:42:19 : 03/04  31.3%
15:42:29 : 03/05  50.0%
15:42:47 : 04/06  34.4%
15:42:53 : 05/07  22.7%
15:43:01 : 06/08  14.5%
15:43:24 : Test finished.

 ----------
Total: 6/8 (14.5%)
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: shadowking on 2017-05-12 15:39:37
G:\Hdd-2\music\abx\mp3>qaac -v 180 emese.wav
qaac 2.62, CoreAudioToolbox 7.10.9.0

emese.m4a
AAC-LC Encoder, CVBR 192kbps, Quality 96
[100.0%] 0:07.033/0:07.033 (15.0x), ETA 0:00.000
310160/310160 samples processed in 0:00.484
Overall bitrate: 242.8kbps
Optimizing...done


foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.0.3
2017/05/13 00:44:27

File A: G:\Hdd-2\music\abx\mp3\emese.wav
File B: G:\Hdd-2\music\abx\mp3\emese.m4a

00:44:27 : Test started.
00:44:47 : 01/01  50.0%
00:45:17 : 02/02  25.0%
00:46:53 : 03/03  12.5%
00:47:19 : 04/04  6.3%
00:47:43 : 05/05  3.1%
00:48:09 : 06/06  1.6%
00:48:50 : 07/07  0.8%
00:50:47 : 08/08  0.4%
00:50:54 : Test finished.

 ----------
Total: 8/8 (0.4%)

Discovered new bad spot around 5.5 secs. Previously I failed with this setting on my usual spot. -v160 sound bad and -v128 ugly
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: shadowking on 2017-05-12 15:48:38
EMESE - MPC --RADIO (157k)

Testing the new spot around 5.5secs

foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.0.3
2017/05/13 00:56:11

File A: G:\Hdd-2\music\abx\mp3\emese.wav
File B: G:\Hdd-2\music\abx\mp3\emese.mpc

00:56:11 : Test started.
00:56:37 : 01/01  50.0%
00:56:42 : 02/02  25.0%
00:56:58 : 02/03  50.0%
00:57:41 : 02/04  68.8%
00:58:04 : 03/05  50.0%
00:58:31 : 03/06  65.6%
00:59:01 : 04/07  50.0%
00:59:17 : 05/08  36.3%
00:59:19 : Test finished.

 ----------
Total: 5/8 (36.3%)
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: Porcus on 2017-05-12 20:41:53
This is getting a log overflow, but shouldn't one compare the MPC version vs the AAC version?
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: halb27 on 2017-05-12 20:53:21
Thank you, shadowking, for your efforts. Well done.
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: IgorC on 2017-05-13 01:16:29
With all respect I should notice several things

1. Amount of samples.
Two samples are far from being representative of performance of different codecs.
It should be at least 10-12 samples to draw any meaningful conclusion.

2. These two  are killer samples. And Emese sample is litereally the most difficult sample I have ever ever heard.
It's good to include a few killer samples... but when You have like 10-12 samples to test.

3. There are only ABX logs. ABCHR should be used instead of ABX to compare directly performance of different formats. During ABX test a listener already knows beforehand which codec he/she tests. That might create a bias.
Also ABCHR is significantly better for quantification of  performance of codecs. (MOS).  Successful ABX log doesn't mean that codec actually performs bad if MOS is ~4.5 or higher.

I just repeat the things those were established/discussed  long long time ago here (like 15 years).
They were here for that long time for a reason, right?

P.S.
4. Oh and I forgot. The most important. To avoid cherry picking of  samples it's good to perform random selection.
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: shadowking on 2017-05-13 06:35:43
QAAC - DEFAULT TVBR MODE - ANGELS FALL FIRST

G:\Hdd-2\music\abx\mp3>qaac  05*.wav
qaac 2.62, CoreAudioToolbox 7.10.9.0

05 - Angels Fall First-ringing.m4a
AAC-LC Encoder, TVBR q91, Quality 96
[100.0%] 0:30.113/0:30.113 (16.4x), ETA 0:00.000
1327995/1327995 samples processed in 0:01.856
Overall bitrate: 180.025kbps
Optimizing...done


foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.0.3
2017/05/13 15:41:02

File A: G:\Hdd-2\music\abx\mp3\05 - Angels Fall First-ringing.flac
File B: G:\Hdd-2\music\abx\mp3\05 - Angels Fall First-ringing.m4a

15:41:02 : Test started.
15:41:29 : 01/01  50.0%
15:41:48 : 02/02  25.0%
15:42:06 : 02/03  50.0%
15:42:20 : 03/04  31.3%
15:42:55 : 04/05  18.8%
15:43:01 : 05/06  10.9%
15:43:07 : 06/07  6.3%
15:43:55 : 07/08  3.5%
15:43:57 : Test finished.

 ----------
Total: 7/8 (3.5%)


This time focusing on on the second guitar pluck.
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: Porcus on 2017-05-13 10:28:36
IgorC has some valid points. But let's not move the goalposts. Mods asked specifically for ABX logs.

But I still think MPC vs AAC is the more relevant comparison for ToS#8. If you claim one performs better, you should be able to tell those two apart from each other, isn't that the natural interpretation? Eliminates an obvious bias (that IgorC points out) as well.
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: shadowking on 2017-05-13 10:49:44
EMESE - MPC --RADIO, 157K VS QAAC -v160 , 192K - 5.5 sec spot.  MPC easily better,

foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.0.3
2017/05/13 19:56:26

File A: G:\Hdd-2\music\abx\mp3\emese.mpc
File B: G:\Hdd-2\music\abx\mp3\emese.m4a

19:56:26 : Test started.
19:56:41 : 01/01  50.0%
19:56:43 : 02/02  25.0%
19:56:51 : 03/03  12.5%
19:57:06 : 04/04  6.3%
19:57:15 : 05/05  3.1%
19:57:28 : 06/06  1.6%
19:57:35 : 07/07  0.8%
19:57:41 : 08/08  0.4%
19:57:42 : Test finished.

 ----------
Total: 8/8 (0.4%)
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: shadowking on 2017-05-13 10:59:14
EMESE - LAME 3.99.5 -V0

foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.0.3
2017/05/13 20:08:44

File A: G:\Hdd-2\music\abx\mp3\emese.wav
File B: G:\Hdd-2\music\abx\mp3\emese.mp3

20:08:44 : Test started.
20:09:05 : 01/01  50.0%
20:09:14 : 02/02  25.0%
20:09:25 : 03/03  12.5%
20:09:29 : 04/04  6.3%
20:09:42 : 05/05  3.1%
20:09:46 : 06/06  1.6%
20:09:52 : 07/07  0.8%
20:11:10 : 08/08  0.4%
20:11:12 : Test finished.

 ----------
Total: 8/8 (0.4%)
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: Porcus on 2017-05-13 11:14:32
EMESE - MPC --RADIO, 157K VS QAAC -v160 , 192K - 5.5 sec spot.  MPC easily better,
192, even.

19:56:41 : 01/01  50.0%
19:56:43 : 02/02  25.0%
Triggerhappy? ;)
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: halb27 on 2017-05-13 11:17:03
I think shadowking has proven that old mpc can be better on critical samples than current AAC.
He can't prove that mpc is in general to be preferred over AAC. Nobody can. Just as nobody can prove that i. g. Opus is to be preferred over mpc or AAC at high bitrate. Simply because usually everything is fine. And the question whether a killer sample is relevant to a person is a very personal question.

But I have to add a critical comment towards mpc. I got a PM recently concerning an old post of mine here on HA. I had forgotten that several years ago I was into mpc. I had all of my music collection encoded using the insane setting. But while normally enjoying my music I heard a strange spot in Joni Mitchell's song 'Cool Water'. I went to ABX and succeeded.
How relevant is that? To me it was as I enjoy especially this kind of music.
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: shadowking on 2017-05-13 11:26:06
EMESE - MPC --RADIO, 157K VS QAAC -v160 , 192K - 5.5 sec spot.  MPC easily better,
192, even.

What are you saying ?

MPC was 157k --radio setting.   AAC was 192k -v160.  A more fair comparison would have been AAC -v130 to match the --radio setting. But -v130 was so bad I gave AAC a head start by testing 160k which is bit high for MPC --radio profile.

19:56:41 : 01/01  50.0%
19:56:43 : 02/02  25.0%
Triggerhappy? ;)
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: Porcus on 2017-05-13 12:32:25
What are you saying ?

MPC was 157k --radio setting.   AAC was 192k -v160.  A more fair comparison would have been AAC -v130 to match the --radio setting. But -v130 was so bad I gave AAC a head start by testing 160k which is bit high for MPC --radio profile.

Yeah, that is what I noticed.

In principle it could be that MPC has tell-all artifacts, so comparing them head-to-head it would likely be better to give MPC a higher setting too. But I won't bother.
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: shadowking on 2017-05-13 12:52:34
EMESE - MPC --STANDARD - 211K VS QAAC -v160 - 192K
MPC easily better.

foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.0.3
2017/05/13 22:01:26

File A: G:\Hdd-2\music\abx\mp3\emese.mpc
File B: G:\Hdd-2\music\abx\mp3\emese.m4a

22:01:26 : Test started.
22:02:12 : 01/01  50.0%
22:02:14 : 02/02  25.0%
22:02:23 : 03/03  12.5%
22:02:25 : 04/04  6.3%
22:02:28 : 05/05  3.1%
22:02:30 : 06/06  1.6%
22:02:32 : 07/07  0.8%
22:02:35 : 08/08  0.4%
22:02:37 : Test finished.

 ----------
Total: 8/8 (0.4%)
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: shadowking on 2017-05-13 12:57:16
What are you saying ?

MPC was 157k --radio setting.   AAC was 192k -v160.  A more fair comparison would have been AAC -v130 to match the --radio setting. But -v130 was so bad I gave AAC a head start by testing 160k which is bit high for MPC --radio profile.

Yeah, that is what I noticed.

In principle it could be that MPC has tell-all artifacts, so comparing them head-to-head it would likely be better to give MPC a higher setting too. But I won't bother.

You actually have it BACKWARDS. MPC -- radio whatever it adds and if it adds makes AAC sound better IMO than vs MPC of higher bitrate.

Yes and dont bother is probably the best choice for you.
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: Arnold B. Krueger on 2017-05-13 13:08:33
I hate to say this but foo_abx v1.x series allows easily "cheating" by focusing on irrelevant differences like a single peaking sample. Differences discernible with v2.0.2 would be more relevant.

Also, in the midst of all these positive results, it would be halpful to show that null results are still possible when the circumstances allow. IOW is some kind of unknown and irrelevant error the true source of the massive volume of easy and positive results.

Then there is the matter of confirmation by others trying to do the same thing.

I hope that nobody takes this personally, but it is really just all about Science.
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: Porcus on 2017-05-13 15:51:57
In principle it could be that MPC has tell-all artifacts, so comparing them head-to-head it would likely be better to give MPC a higher setting too. But I won't bother.
You actually have it BACKWARDS. MPC -- radio whatever it adds and if it adds makes AAC sound better IMO than vs MPC of higher bitrate.
Sure, but evidence is not about how things are, but how things are shown to be.
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: IgorC on 2017-05-14 01:36:53
Shadowking,

It will be awesome to see a personal multiformat comparison from You. Like 15 samples.   :)
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: Arnold B. Krueger on 2017-05-14 14:51:21
Shadowking,

It will be awesome to see a personal multiformat comparison from You. Like 15 samples.  :)

Even more awesome to see confirmation by an independent party. I'm 70 and know all to well where my hearing is particularly after the chemotherapy, to be able to provide anything relevant.
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: IgorC on 2017-05-14 16:22:02
Arnold, I appreciate all work You have done related to blind testing.  :)
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: chrome_waves on 2019-12-04 10:43:57
Have been quite pleased with mpc now for a couple years, zero complaints, thanks for all the excellent advice

I have already been working on it a little, I chose to use mpc quality 10 (highest)
Using foobar to convert from flac
Hope I made the right decision

MPC is generally transparent ( by design) at --quality 5 and even lower setting --quality 4.x can be very decent for portable use. Going lower than that it starts to show its limits and there are new codecs like aac, opus, vorbis ..

Anyway I was going to tell you before the other made a big noise over nothing:  Do a listening test of several tracks and start at --quality 5.  If you don't care for very high bitrate then --quality 10 without listening test is fine. Anything over --quality 7 is usually considered excessive .
Title: Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?
Post by: Fairy on 2019-12-04 14:57:48
Have been quite pleased with mpc now for a couple years, zero complaints, thanks for all the excellent advice

I have already been working on it a little, I chose to use mpc quality 10 (highest)
Using foobar to convert from flac
Hope I made the right decision

MPC is generally transparent ( by design) at --quality 5 and even lower setting --quality 4.x can be very decent for portable use. Going lower than that it starts to show its limits and there are new codecs like aac, opus, vorbis ..

Anyway I was going to tell you before the other made a big noise over nothing:  Do a listening test of several tracks and start at --quality 5.  If you don't care for very high bitrate then --quality 10 without listening test is fine. Anything over --quality 7 is usually considered excessive .

Arnold sadly passed away some time ago... He was a very knowledgeable person.

https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,115942.0.html
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/arny-krueger-has-passed-away.3151/
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2020