Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: Why does there seem to be a lack of interest in Musepack? (Read 65464 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Why does there seem to be a lack of interest in Musepack?

Musepack is still as good as mp3 if not better and on par with modern codecs and vorbis and aac so why does no one talk about it? I was murking around the forum wiki and found out musepack was opensource which is a big plus for me... and older abx tests have it on par with aotuv or lame so why no talk? is it becuase of slow development? I think this is unfair if the codec is already so good no more tuning is needed..... any reason why people don't use mpc anymore other then compatibility? (converting from lossless to another format isn't too trivial... lol....)

Why does there seem to be a lack of interest in Musepack?

Reply #1 –
I believe the answer is because MPC is on par with the modern codecs up in the "boring" bitrates >=160 VBR where all serious players are transparent a majority of the time for a majority of samples.
The public interest has shifted down to the fight for <=128 - where I have not noticed serious competition from MPC.
Creature of habit.

Why does there seem to be a lack of interest in Musepack?

Reply #2 –
wow.... oh ok that sucks though I am willing to sacrifice disc space for transparency though... hard disk space is so cheap now a days.... but its not only about quality.....  This codec being open source make it a major plus... but aoToV is another nice open source codec hough.. guess im going to have to just mess around with the both of them... I only encode anything below 170) (lame at vbr q4) for portable listening on my winmo... or when out and about on other pcs with a nice pair of head phones

Why does there seem to be a lack of interest in Musepack?

Reply #3 –
I agree with Soap about the public being more interested in lower bitrates.

From personal tests i find Musepack to be a poor performer at low bitrates such as 96kbps - 128kbps, i even find --standard to be easy to ABX. At high bitrates such as 210 (Xtreme) it's very competitive.
"I never thought I'd see this much candy in one mission!"

Why does there seem to be a lack of interest in Musepack?

Reply #4 –
The point is hardware support.

Why does there seem to be a lack of interest in Musepack?

Reply #5 –
If open source is big plus to you, i would recommend Ogg Vorbis; which offers better compatabilty then Musepack.
"I never thought I'd see this much candy in one mission!"

Why does there seem to be a lack of interest in Musepack?

Reply #6 –
the future (present) of music on pc is lossless. on portable it's transparent and widespread (well supported) lossy (mp3 or occasionally aac, ogg). in long term, the future is lossless on portable too.

yes, there can be a few geeks using exotic codecs but the masses simply won't care coz the current solution (mp3 & flac) works and fits their needs.

Why does there seem to be a lack of interest in Musepack?

Reply #7 –
Well, it's a matter of choice, you know.
For me Musepack is a preferred codec for high quality music (for example progressive) because I believe it cause less listening fatigue. Or at least I believed that a few years ago. I cannot prove it because I doubt I could stay concentrated for few hours in order to do ABX or ABC tests. Maybe such tests are not feasible for long listening fatigue anyway.
For not so fussy stuff (because my HD space is not unlimited anyway) I use ogg vorbis, also an excellent codec using twice less space .

Why does there seem to be a lack of interest in Musepack?

Reply #8 –
Years ago when HD space was an issue, high quality, high bitrate lossy mattered for the extreme minority who were concerned with transparency. The majority were fine with their 128kbps then and they are still now.

What is there to talk about anyway? Listening tests? With little to no development, what's the use? Hardware support?

Why does there seem to be a lack of interest in Musepack?

Reply #9 –
I disagree somewhat. The core values of HA sure has changed. I find it ironic that there is little interest in HQ lossy for portables and even PC - even using exotic formats. OTOH, lossless is encouraged and that is great as there is more HDD space these days. BUT: increased complexity is an issue ; Multiple libraries, obsessing with 128k or lower even though there is space for very high bitrate lossy or even lossless.

Major music stores are offering 256k audio. So that is the new '128 k'. Take a hint. We can go for 300 ~ 400k Vorbis / AAC , they have hardware support and this cuts lossless size in half and no transcoding.

Not everyone needs portable audio often so exotic stuff like wv hybrid, lossywav, mpc is also ok.

wavpack 4.8 -b3x6c

Why does there seem to be a lack of interest in Musepack?

Reply #10 –
Quote from: shadowking on
I disagree somewhat. The core values of HA sure has changed. I find it ironic that there is little interest in HQ lossy for portables and even PC - even using exotic formats.

Why is it ironic? I really doubt I could ABX 128k or above on a portable device that I listen too in noisy environments, or use as background music anyway.

Quote from: shadowking on
OTOH, lossless is encouraged and that is great as there is more HDD space these days. BUT: increased complexity is an issue ; Multiple libraries, obsessing with 128k or lower even though there is space for very high bitrate lossy or even lossless.

Lossless is more complex? Why? Who is obsessing about 128k?

Quote from: shadowking on
Major music stores are offering 256k audio. So that is the new '128 k'. Take a hint.

What is the hint, that I should base my behavior from a decision made by an internal committee of a corporate music store. A decision that I have no background information about why it was made in the first place?

Quote from: shadowking on
We can go for 300 ~ 400k Vorbis / AAC , they have hardware support and this cuts lossless size in half and no transcoding.

Well, I think vorbis support is still questionable (i.e. Sony, Apple, ...). I don't even know if it is supported by a base Windows install yet. You'll have to provide more evidence why you think 400k AAC is better than lossless, I just don't see it. As you said its only a 2x improvement over lossless, and HD are cheaps. And by definition, everything made from 400k AAC IS transcoded.

Quote from: shadowking on
Not everyone needs portable audio often so exotic stuff like wv hybrid, lossywav, mpc is also ok.

Not everyone, but I would say 90% or more are interested in portable audio. If not, then technically any format is fine. But I think it would be safer to choose something mainstream, or otherwise 10 years down the line you will be transcoding stuff. OTOH, if you pick a lossless format, you won't have to worry about transcoding across format changes ever.
Is your perfect hearing worth <$200? -- USE EAR PLUGS

Why does there seem to be a lack of interest in Musepack?

Reply #11 –
128k is a reduction in standards. I am not telling anyone to NOT use it as that would be anti-freedom. This new mantra " just use lossless and stuff the other format cause mp3 is universal 128k should be fine" I find objectionable.

I like lossless , But shouldn't we be using it outside of our Pc  as well ? I would like to take the same quality library everywhere i can. If HA members don't demand HQ playback DAP (gapless, lossless, exotic lossy..) - who will ?
wavpack 4.8 -b3x6c

Why does there seem to be a lack of interest in Musepack?

Reply #12 –
I think (or at least would hope) people want hq on a portable not for quality but for security... like e.g. I transcode a couple of albums for my winmo device I can easily just copy it back to a pc and have it sound practically transparent when using my home setup...

all the listening tests on this forum are done using 128k...  and I know there are people that choose a codec based on those abx tests.... e.x. I went to foobar2000 irc channel and was told to use aac over vorbis because of abx (failed to find any tests though) quality tests at lower bitrates....

lol so why does everyone use mp3? for quality, compression? I believe for compatibility... but wait who decides what format is the standard of choice in hardware? an "internal committee" of people.... im not saying you use mp3 but its the "IT" codec now for alot people on this forum (from the polls) becuase of other peoples choices....

and to that person that recommended vorbis, I  actually use aotuv 5.7 q6-8 for my "everyday playback" libary and compress to flac for my lossless

Removed unnecessary quote.

Why does there seem to be a lack of interest in Musepack?

Reply #13 –
Quote from: shadowking on
I like lossless , But shouldn't we be using it outside of our Pc  as well ? I would like to take the same quality library everywhere i can. If HA members don't demand HQ playback DAP (gapless, lossless, exotic lossy..) - who will ?


What does it mean to "take the same quality library everywhere I can"? 

I can transcode my FLACs to MP3 upon transfer to my portable almost as fast as I can fill the portable's drive.  I am pretty sure the next computer I buy will be able to transcode as fast as it can copy to a slow HDD.  At that point what, exactly, is the advantage of not transcoding?

I do demand HQ playback on my DAP.  I'm just not delusional enough to believe I can hear the difference between FLAC and LAME v3 on my DAP, and would rather have the battery life and size advantages of MP3.
Creature of habit.

Why does there seem to be a lack of interest in Musepack?

Reply #14 –
Quote from: viktor on
the future (present) of music on pc is lossless. on portable it's transparent and widespread (well supported) lossy (mp3 or occasionally aac, ogg). in long term, the future is lossless on portable too...

I doubt the future is lossless because 1- lossless contain needless information 2- lower than lossless bitrates can give awfully good quality 3- songs sold online are mostly lossy and selling rythm is increasing fast (didn't some months ago digital albums sold surpassed traditional audio CD's selling?).

Besides, in the future desktops PC's will have market penetration as high as it has now? I think they will less and less important among all devices (existents and still to be developed).

Quote from: nycjv321 on
...
lol so why does everyone use mp3? for quality, compression? I believe for compatibility... but wait who decides what format is the standard of choice in hardware? an "internal committee" of people.... im not saying you use mp3 but its the "IT" codec now for alot people on this forum (from the polls) becuase of other peoples choices.
...

mp3 was one of the first codecs to get near transparancy at low bitrates and it was there at the right moment.

Several groups of people/companies/organizations/etc. developed a mp3 encoder causing mp3 to get popular fast, this in addition to internet starting to get into the homes. mpc/musepack didn't get much publicity nor hardware support nor vendor support.

Why does there seem to be a lack of interest in Musepack?

Reply #15 –
Quote from: shadowking on
...
I like lossless , But shouldn't we be using it outside of our Pc  as well ? I would like to take the same quality library everywhere i can. If HA members don't demand HQ playback DAP (gapless, lossless, exotic lossy..) - who will ?

A kind of OT: Why this obsession with lossless format? (no offense    ) Remember that lossless recording still is a lossy process. It's just about where one wants the limit. And the limit is influenced by all kind of factors.

Why does there seem to be a lack of interest in Musepack?

Reply #16 –
I returned relatively recently to HA after quite a long time away, and I was surprised at the apparent change in attitude to MPC - from being *the* preferred lossy codec, it seems now to be almost treated with disdain by many here.

I think the "problem" (if you can call it that) is that it started from a very high level in terms of quality - this was certainly the reason I adopted it several years ago as my lossy codec of choice. From what I learnt from this forum, and from my own experiences, it was more or less "done" at an early stage in terms of perceptual transparency, apart from a handful of freak cases - any future sonic improvements would by definition be rare, subtle and undramatic, and I saw this as a benefit rather than a weakness.

I guess it was always likely that other codecs would eventually catch up, but IMHO that doesn't diminish Musepack's original achievement, or mean that it's in any way a "bad" lossy option today, unless you need certain features unrelated to perceptual transparency that other codecs can provide.

Why does there seem to be a lack of interest in Musepack?

Reply #17 –
I think the world continued to be dominated by the iPod, while the things that weren't iPods started to play Vorbis and/or FLAC as well as mp3 (and usually WMA). MPC support didn't spread as fast.

If you want a lossy collection that is sure to outlive your current choice of DAP, mp3 has always been the only choice.

If you want a high quality collection on your PC, you've got more choice than ever, but rapidly diminishing disc prices make it increasingly silly not to use lossless.


I don't know if anyone else has noticed this, but CDs are heading towards obsolescence.  Now is a great time to make a lossless backup of your valuable collection. In five or ten years time, I don't think the tools are going to be so easily available - for instance, having an optical drive that can rip CDs quickly and securely won't be a huge selling point when most normal people have thrown their CDs in the bin! The time to rip to lossless is now (if you haven't already). 1.5TB HDD = £86 = about 3 pence per CD lossless.


As for what lossy to use, I'm with Soap:- it doesn't matter. Pick a fast encoder, leave some quality headroom, and do it on the fly.

Cheers,
David.

Why does there seem to be a lack of interest in Musepack?

Reply #18 –
I have used Musepack for quite some time and of course it is still as good as it was, only many of the other lossy codecs have improved. LAME 3.98 -V 1 is for me a perfect alternative for Musepack -q 6 and plays virtually anywhere.
I felt Musepack has become a dead end street whereas FLAC (with or without lossywav) and mp3 have the better options for my use, now and the near future.
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.

Why does there seem to be a lack of interest in Musepack?

Reply #19 –
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
I think the world continued to be dominated by the iPod, while the things that weren't iPods started to play Vorbis and/or FLAC as well as mp3 (and usually WMA). MPC support didn't spread as fast.


That is pretty much what I am thinking.  Over the years, iPods have dominated the market selling millions of units in a single month.  Additionally, the iTunes Store is selling millions of songs in a short period of time.  That is a lot of growth for AAC support while mpc (and other formats such as OGG Vorbis) stays behind.  It isn't mpc's fault but rather the market just went a different direction.  We would be having a different conversation if Apple chose mpc as their format of choice over AAC.

Why does there seem to be a lack of interest in Musepack?

Reply #20 –
For the lower bitrates (below 128kbps) musepack competes with aac, wma, and vorbis, all of which offer much better hardware and software support.  That can't be denied, and that's pretty much the reason muspack is kind of pushed aside.  If you like the openness of the codec, go vorbis...you have a much better chance of support than not.  Anything above 128kbps is very much transparent across codecs so people go to the de-facto codecs (FLAC, ALAC, mp3, and aac) due to their support across many devices.  Unless musepack can do all that, it can't be expected to be a modern player in the field.
foobar 0.9.6.8
FLAC -5
LAME 3.98 -V3

Why does there seem to be a lack of interest in Musepack?

Reply #21 –
I think Musepack is a perfectly usable format for many reasons:

- fast encoding
- fast decoding
- great quality at -q5
- APE tags
- notably smaller filesize at -q5 than LAME -V 2
- works on all the players I have

A quick bench on my machine (FB2K, buffer entire file to memory):
Code: [Select]
LAME MP3 =  171x
MPC SV8 = 272x
Vorbis = 161x
Nero AAC = 201x

I benched the lossless codecs and only FLAC (at -5, btw) beat MPC with TAK coming close behind, and WAV reigning supreme, of course.

What I like is ripping the new CD's I bring home to MPC in record time and peruse the album at leisure keeping the CD safe and the disc drive unoccupied. If my collection is incompatible with people wanting free music... well, that's tough that I'm unpopular
"Something bothering you, Mister Spock?"

Why does there seem to be a lack of interest in Musepack?

Reply #22 –
Quote from: nycjv321 on
Musepack is still as good as mp3 if not better and on par with modern codecs and vorbis and aac so why does no one talk about it? I was murking around the forum wiki and found out musepack was opensource which is a big plus for me... and older abx tests have it on par with aotuv or lame so why no talk? is it becuase of slow development? I think this is unfair if the codec is already so good no more tuning is needed..... any reason why people don't use mpc anymore other then compatibility? (converting from lossless to another format isn't too trivial... lol....)

For starters, LAME is almost as good as MPC, and Vorbis can be said to be even better.

So, if LAME is on par with MPC, but it has 50 times the hw support, why bother with MPC?

And if you want better quality than LAME, why don't go with Vorbis wich still has much better HW support than MPC.

Or even more, go with FLAC.

Other problem i see is that for a long time, it was almost abandoned, and no new dev was being done.

This is how i see it.

Why does there seem to be a lack of interest in Musepack?

Reply #23 –
Quote from: Destroid on
I think Musepack is a perfectly usable format for many reasons:

...

- works on all the players I have

...at the moment.

Even then, what you've said might not be strictly true. Chances are you have something that plays mp3s but not mpcs (e.g. a DVD player) - you've just not thought to use it for that purpose.

Cheers,
David.

Why does there seem to be a lack of interest in Musepack?

Reply #24 –
I think those who have a mpc music library and no current compatibility issue with players used don't have a real need actually to switch to another format. mpc at not too low a bitrate still is excellent. There seems to be not a significant amount of mpc development, but as the codec is mature, there is also no real need for that though it would be welcome.

For all those who don't have a mpc music library actually mpc isn't a good choice. Qualitywise AAC, Vorbis and even today's mp3 are a good alternative with better hardware compatibility (with AAC getting more and more DAP support and Vorbis falling a bit behind).
lame3995o -Q1.7
opus --bitrate 140
 
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2019