Quality Of Mp3 -> Mpc Trascode

Topic: Quality Of Mp3 -> Mpc Trascode (Read 9270 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Quality Of Mp3 -> Mpc Trascode

2002-09-09 22:33:01

Hi,
bootlegging a little I have collected some rare stuff but were of course only able to get these samples in 192 kbps mp3.

Now my question is if I transcode these mp3's to mpc --std will the quality-noticeable
decrese be noticeable?
I am not very good at hearing artifacts so I can't very well hear this myself.

The advantages of doing this would be APE2-tags and a considerable lower bitrate.
The mpc's I get is around 80 kbps (well...on the one sample just I tried) so the space saved is noticeable.

Quality Of Mp3 -> Mpc Trascode

Reply #1 – 2002-09-10 00:05:24

If you can't notice, and your the person who will be listening to it, then it doesn't matter....

Quality Of Mp3 -> Mpc Trascode

Reply #2 – 2002-09-10 05:14:10

You'd have to bootleg A LOT in order to make the saved space mean anything.

A quick calculation: You save 112 kbps = 14 kb/sec = 1 Gb for 21 hours of music. That is $1.50 with current harddisk prices.

IMHO tags are pointless when you have file names.

Quality Of Mp3 -> Mpc Trascode

Reply #3 – 2002-09-10 06:25:26

It means something when I'm burning the stuff to cd's.
Well but that not so much the problem...it's the crappyness of the mp3 format that's the motivation.

And tags are not pointless IMO... and especially not with bootlegs where you wanna know what's going on.

Quality Of Mp3 -> Mpc Trascode

Reply #4 – 2002-09-10 06:39:25

Quote

...it's the crappyness of the mp3 format that's the motivation.

well unfortunately, if your source is mp3's, transcoding to mpc will remove none of the 'crappyness' of the mp3 format. It will just make things worse.

Plus most bootlegs I've heard don't exactly have stellar quality to begin with...

Quality Of Mp3 -> Mpc Trascode

Reply #5 – 2002-09-10 07:03:16

Quote

...transcode...
...it's the crappyness of the mp3 format that's the motivation.

I can't believe a moderator just asked that...

Quality Of Mp3 -> Mpc Trascode

Reply #6 – 2002-09-10 07:04:45

Quote

Quote
...it's the crappyness of the mp3 format that's the motivation.

well unfortunately, if your source is mp3's, transcoding to mpc will remove none of the 'crappyness' of the mp3 format. It will just make things worse.

Plus most bootlegs I've heard don't exactly have stellar quality to begin with...

I know the quality will only get worse; that was not what I meant.
Most of the bootlegs have quite bad quality yes.

The problem is that my equipment is not of a quality that will enable me to draw a valid conclusion myself.
Thats why I ask you.

Quality Of Mp3 -> Mpc Trascode

Reply #7 – 2002-09-10 07:18:25

Quote

Quote
Quote
...it's the crappyness of the mp3 format that's the motivation.

well unfortunately, if your source is mp3's, transcoding to mpc will remove none of the 'crappyness' of the mp3 format. It will just make things worse.

Plus most bootlegs I've heard don't exactly have stellar quality to begin with...

I know the quality will only get worse; that was not what I meant.
Most of the bootlegs have quite bad quality yes.

The problem is that my equipment is not of a quality that will enable me to draw a valid conclusion myself.
Thats why I ask you.

The people are simple asking why do yo want to transcode ? and risk the quality degrade ?

what are the purpose of you transcoding. i bet you not just doing it because you want to transcode. its must have som kind of goal.

Quality Of Mp3 -> Mpc Trascode

Reply #8 – 2002-09-10 07:53:10

Quote

Quote
Quote
Quote
...it's the crappyness of the mp3 format that's the motivation.

well unfortunately, if your source is mp3's, transcoding to mpc will remove none of the 'crappyness' of the mp3 format. It will just make things worse.

Plus most bootlegs I've heard don't exactly have stellar quality to begin with...

I know the quality will only get worse; that was not what I meant.
Most of the bootlegs have quite bad quality yes.

The problem is that my equipment is not of a quality that will enable me to draw a valid conclusion myself.
Thats why I ask you.

The people are simple asking why do yo want to transcode ? and risk the quality degrade ?

what are the purpose of you transcoding. i bet you not just doing it because you want to transcode. its must have som kind of goal.

Goals are using my beloved myoooßepack, ape2-tags, more efficient encoding, lower bitrate.

Quality Of Mp3 -> Mpc Trascode

Reply #9 – 2002-09-10 08:55:15

Goals are using my beloved myoooßepack, ape2-tags, more efficient encoding, lower bitrate.

It seems like you are asking people opinion, so here it comes: CRAZY IDEA!

1. You would have to transcode A LOT of music in order to save a just a few gigabytes. Harddisk space cost nothing and it doesn't take that long to burn a few cds. Much less time than you will use on the transcoding process.

2. There is no valid reason to love a bad MPC file over a better MP3 file. Hopefully you are not reading the bitstream manually. Every player can play MP3. Since MPC isn't open source, you cannot even claim religion over music quality.

3. I don't know what kind of information you can store in those tags. But I am sure you can put the files from your bootleg in a directory and put other info files, such as text, html and images, there as well.

Quality Of Mp3 -> Mpc Trascode

Reply #10 – 2002-09-10 11:10:15

No I did not ask for you opinion wether or not transcoding was a good idea.

I know enough to make a decision myself apart from the quality issue.
That's what I asked about; nothing else.
I can form my own opinion on all other factors and make my decision.

So let me try again:
What is your objective opinion about the audio quality of a 192 kbps mp3 trascoded to a mpc --std based on your experience and not vague theoretical ideas?

Quality Of Mp3 -> Mpc Trascode

Reply #11 – 2002-09-10 13:04:39

TRANSCODING IST DEATH!!!

But let's forget that for a moment. My general experience is, that mpc will encode crappy input material (like old recordings and I suspect bootlegs too) at pretty low bitrates. I think you should try it on some more samples and look at what bitrates you will be expecting. I also think that the loss of quality isn't that great since mpc will do a good job transparently compressing almost everything you throw at it.

About the tagging issue. You can use case's tag tool to add ape tags to mp3 files. "tag --force ape" etc. ID3v2 might be a more obvious solution. Like allready suggested, create a text file in the directory with all the info; tag can also help you with that one.

I don't quite understand your motivation though.

Quality Of Mp3 -> Mpc Trascode

Reply #12 – 2002-09-10 13:40:51

Quote

ID3v2 might be a more obvious solution.

id3v2 IST death.

Quality Of Mp3 -> Mpc Trascode

Reply #13 – 2002-09-10 14:01:29

Quote

I know enough to make a decision myself apart from the quality issue.

(...)
What is your objective opinion about the audio quality of a 192 kbps mp3 trascoded to a mpc --std based on your experience and not vague theoretical ideas ?

My purpose isn't to answer your question. Just a few thing about size. I tried to compare the size of a mpc file, encoded from original, the mpc file, reencoded from a 192@basic-LAME file, and the mp3 himself.

Johann Sebastian Bach - Concerto for violin BWV 1042 - 1. Allegro

mp3 : 10 034 ko (192 kb/s)
mpc : 10 512 ko (195 kb/s)
mp3=> mpc : 10458 (194 kb/s)

transcoded mpc is bigger than mp3 CBR file - quality is theoricaly lower than mpc original file AND mp3 file (but you know it). Benefit : 0

Red Hot Chili Peppers - Blood Sugar Sex magic - 1. The Power of Equality

mp3 : 5707 ko (192 kb/s)
mpc : 5678 ko (191 kb/s)
mp3=>mpc : 5685 (191 kb/s)

File size are the same - quality is lower (theory)

Metallica - Metallica - 1. Enter Sandman

mp3 : 7788 ko (192 kb/s)
mpc : 6912 ko (170 kb/s)
mp3=>mpc : 7124 (175 kb/s)

In that case, you will gain space by reencoding. But you can see that the mpc file directly encoded from the CD is smaller than the re-encoded mpc file

ENCODER USED : mppenc 1.1 - LAME 3.91 (P.Pawlowski WA plug-in)
DECODER USER : WA Diskwriter.
Bitrate CALCULATION : Encspot2

I can not say anything about quality without a real ABX test. With a fast test with winamp, The Metallica song seems to be degraded compared to original song - normal.

Quality Of Mp3 -> Mpc Trascode

Reply #14 – 2002-09-10 14:11:03

Apart from Gecko, nobody seems to want to answer your question, Jan!!

I've done quite a lot of playing with transcoding from one format to another, mainly because all people seem to say is how awful the results are. Well, at the expense of inciting more useless comments, I have to say that since you're not stupid and you know the quality will probably degrade, albeit not by much, go ahead and do it. All the first generation transcodes I've tried really were nowhere near as bad as people suggest. I'm not advocating it, but it really isn't as bad as all that.

Quality Of Mp3 -> Mpc Trascode

Reply #15 – 2002-09-10 15:00:05

Quote

So let me try again:
What is your objective opinion about the audio quality of a 192 kbps mp3 trascoded to a mpc --std based on your experience and not vague theoretical ideas?

I have only tried this once before and with source mp3 of of very varying quality although I suspect most were smaller than 192kbit. (It was from a burned cd made from mp3s, so I don't know exactly)

Those files sounded very similar to the sourcefiles (with warbling and pre-echo and all) - not better but also not worse.

But me too want to ask you if it is religion or science behind your lust for transcoding?

/Erik

Quality Of Mp3 -> Mpc Trascode

Reply #16 – 2002-09-10 18:58:20

Quote

But me too want to ask you if it is religion or science behind your lust for transcoding?

Religion +

Quote

Goals are using my beloved myoooßepack, ape2-tags, more efficient encoding, lower bitrate.

+ Faster decoding.

I encoded more files to check the bitrate I will get and they are all between 80kbps and 90 kbps (encoded an hours worth of audio between 27 files).

I found that I had one 256kbps file in my collection and here the bitrate jumped to 140kbps.

Thanks to the ones that actually aswered my question.

Quality Of Mp3 -> Mpc Trascode

Reply #17 – 2002-09-10 19:07:13

Quote

Quote
But me too want to ask you if it is religion or science behind your lust for transcoding?

Religion +
Quote
Goals are using my beloved myoooßepack, ape2-tags, more efficient encoding, lower bitrate.

+ Faster decoding.

You can add (more) gapless playback if I was to use tags in the mp3's.

Quality Of Mp3 -> Mpc Trascode

Reply #18 – 2002-09-10 22:11:01

Don't care about it, Jan! You see how difficult this (and any) transcoding subject is - even when put on table by an experienced member. Again it is Gecko who isn't afraid of the transcoding taboo Now I don't think your question was a stupid one at all. (MPC is a pretty good signal imitator after all ...) but we are probably afraid of our dear MPC format being spoilt by ...

Quality Of Mp3 -> Mpc Trascode

Reply #19 – 2002-09-11 01:10:15

Quote

Don't care about it, Jan! You see how difficult this (and any) transcoding subject is - even when put on table by an experienced member. Again it is Gecko who isn't afraid of the transcoding taboo Now I don't think your question was a stupid one at all. (MPC is a pretty good signal imitator after all ...) but we are probably afraid of our dear MPC format being spoilt by ...

...he...

...think of a simple member as me asking this...

N/m

Quality Of Mp3 -> Mpc Trascode

Reply #20 – 2002-09-11 01:34:20

The only point in transcoding is gaining comfort from seeing the .mpc extension instead of the .mp3 extension, even though the transcoded .mpc file is an inferior degraded copy. So it's a psychological thing. I'd keep the original mp3's.

Quality Of Mp3 -> Mpc Trascode

Reply #21 – 2002-09-11 01:59:26

Quote

The only point in transcoding is gaining comfort from seeing the .mpc extension instead of the .mp3 extension

In Jan's case, he gets lots of space as well, with small quality degrade.

Quality Of Mp3 -> Mpc Trascode

Reply #22 – 2002-09-11 02:34:27

Quote

Quote
The only point in transcoding is gaining comfort from seeing the .mpc extension instead of the .mp3 extension

In Jan's case, he gets lots of space as well, with small quality degrade.

This ruins the initial idea of Andree Buschmann to have a format without a bunch of crappy
encoders so the chance is high to get a high quality copy of a CD title when downloading a file from internet. When people start transcoding Xing 128 or 192 kbps files to MPC to save some
bytes this idea is dead and I should add a MP3 detection routine to mppenc to block
former MP3 input.

Today I have erased a lot of 192 kbps and 256 kbps Lame MP3 files which very likely
were Xing files before they were Lame files. Transcoding from Xing to Lame to increase
quality. Some nice music, but bloody sound quality.

(Sorting MP3 files for 3 days ....., most of the files are erased and the list of CDs to buy is growing)

Bei Vobis: 120 GB Festplatte für 169 EUR. Ausreichend für halbes Jahr Musik mit 64 kbps Hifi-Qualität.

Quality Of Mp3 -> Mpc Trascode

Reply #23 – 2002-09-11 02:43:28

Jan, my friend, please learn: If you post about transcoding, expected to be flamed to death - no matter how valid and righteous your reasons are. Most people don't understand that there might be valid cases and valid reasons for transcoding.

Quality Of Mp3 -> Mpc Trascode

Reply #24 – 2002-09-11 05:47:12

i say just do it... listen to the transcoded mpcs for a little while before deleting the originals, and if you don't mind the sound, then keep it. simple.

this isn't simply just a love for the .mpc extension. try using mppdec to decode a couple of mpc files. on my 800mhz duron, most songs take around 1-2 seconds to decode. if Jan wants to make an audio cd out of his bootlegs one day, he won't have to wait for decodes before burning wav files with nero.

and yes, ape2 tags are brilliant, rape any id3 format, and can save the user from wasting time wading through nested subdirectories of genres. don't get me wrong, filesystem organization is 99% adequate for my uses.

just a few pennies

Notice