Skip to main content
Topic: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ? (Read 13189 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?

Reply #125
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%)
wavpack 4.8 -b256hx6c

Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?

Reply #126
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.
wavpack 4.8 -b256hx6c

Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?

Reply #127
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.

Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?

Reply #128
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.
High Voltage socket-nose-avatar

Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?

Reply #129
Shadowking,

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

Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?

Reply #130
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.

Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?

Reply #131
Arnold, I appreciate all work You have done related to blind testing.  :)

Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?

Reply #132
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 .

 

Re: Compressing Lossless to Lossy - Codec Recommendations ?

Reply #133
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