Pros And Cons Of Mpc?

Topic: Pros And Cons Of Mpc? (Read 6005 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Pros And Cons Of Mpc?

2002-09-10 14:43:00

Hello,
My hdd crashed on me two days ago. It means I have to rerip all my albums.
They were encoded in -r3mix with LAME.

What are the advantages and disadvantages of MPC over MP3? -r3mix sounds transparent to me.

Pros And Cons Of Mpc?

Reply #1 – 2002-09-10 15:01:54

the only negative point is hardware support. in every other aspect it is better than mp3

Pros And Cons Of Mpc?

Reply #2 – 2002-09-10 15:12:20

BUT if the mp3s are transparent to you with --r3mix, there's no point in going for a 'better' codec.

Moving over to --alt-preset standard mp3s would give you even better quality--if --r3mix weren't transparent to you already

Of course if you think you'd never need hardware support you're welcome to encode to mpc for the sheer geekiness and feelings of superiority

Pros And Cons Of Mpc?

Reply #3 – 2002-09-10 15:26:54

Quote

BUT if the mp3s are transparent to you with --r3mix, there's no point in going for a 'better' codec.

Not sure. You can find --r3mix transparent and discover later tant they aren't... My first steps with mp3 were in 128, with Fhg/Radium codec. No audible problem : « quality CD »... Few month later => SHIFT+SUPPR

Pros And Cons Of Mpc?

Reply #4 – 2002-09-10 15:29:09

MPC is better quality, but if you can't hear then no point. Cause you be losing out on the portability of MP3.

I would recommend you switch to Ogg Vorbis at -q 6 much better quality and promised hardware support! If not encode to APS-fast (Fast cause it will take a much shorter time to encode and since he was using r3mix before thus would appreciate the extra speed ).

Laters
AgentMil

Pros And Cons Of Mpc?

Reply #5 – 2002-09-10 15:59:48

Quote

I would recommend you switch to Ogg Vorbis at -q 6 much better quality (...)

Are you sure ?
--alt-preset standard gives very good results for mp3 format. Big issue is, for me, pre-echo. Vorbis is better than mp3 - but bad too. I did test on castanets samples, or electronic ones : result is better than --alt-preset standard, sure. But pre-echo is easily audible. PsyTEL is maybe a better choice for hardware compatibility/encoding quality. Or just wait than Garf & others worked on higher -q...

Pros And Cons Of Mpc?

Reply #6 – 2002-09-10 16:50:29

Quote

Quote

Are you sure ?

If you're intensely pre-echo sensitive, then MPC is the choice for you. Don't even bother with AAC - it's licenced so far up it's own behind its face has been burned off by stomach acid.

Pros And Cons Of Mpc?

Reply #7 – 2002-09-10 16:55:50

Quote

it's licenced so far up it's own behind its face has been burned off by stomach acid.

You're right. I only had in mind audio quality and hardware compatibility.
AAC is even very loooong when encoding, and have a very poor tag system (has aac a tag system ? I heard that IDtag v1 can corrupt the stream with aac).
For a complete jukebox, aac is maybe not the good choice.

Pros And Cons Of Mpc?

Reply #8 – 2002-09-10 17:53:05

guru, you're the one who found out recently that you could 'easily' ABX MPC --extreme, right? I think your ears are a bit different from most people's

Pros And Cons Of Mpc?

Reply #9 – 2002-09-10 18:42:50

Quote

guru, you're the one who found out recently that you could 'easily' ABX MPC --extreme, right? I think your ears are a bit different from most people's

No, I don't think so
I should try again to abx castanet.wav with --extreme, with a « fresh brain » (castanet shouldn't stay in my memory, 7 weeks after the big tests). Maybe this evening (in France)

Pros And Cons Of Mpc?

Reply #10 – 2002-09-10 18:48:06

Quote

(has aac a tag system ? I heard that IDtag v1 can corrupt the stream with aac)

AAC doesn't have a tagging system per se, but MP4 - AAC official container format - features a very good tagging system similar to QuickTime's system.

Pros And Cons Of Mpc?

Reply #11 – 2002-09-10 19:32:29

Thanks rjamorim. How do you tag your PsyTel files ?

I just did a small listening test with castanets.wav with ABC/HR (nice progress since june version !) : mpc --standard and mpc --extreme. I didn't use the ABX tool, because even standard gives me difficulties today.
I was obliged to listen several times the original before say anything about each couple.

Code: [Select]

#1 : mpc5 : OK  mpc6 : permutation
#2 : mpc5 : OK  mpc6 : permutation
#3 : mpc5 : OK  mpc6 : permutation
#4 : mpc5 : OK  mpc6 : no decision
#5 : mpc5 : OK  mpc6 : no decision
#6 : mpc5 : OK  mpc6 : no decision
#7 : mpc5 : OK  mpc6 : no decision
#8 : mpc5 : OK  mpc6 : no decision

I can not ABX --extreme again this evening (but --standard with very few difficulties)
I'm not really surprised. In july, I took a lot of time before I tried and to abx --extreme (many hour of listening), and I need more time before ABX this preset with success. The « memory effect » I suggest to explain the 30/30 phenomenon seems to be true. My ears are common, but with the help of memory, listening accuracy is far better.

After that short session, I tried to ABX ogg -q8.
I did 3/3 on ABC/HR, and I switched to the ABX tool because I find it too easy. result : 19/20 [first one was bad]. Vorbis suffer of pre-echo, not Musepack. Ogg is easy to abx for that reason.
Mpc introduce a small distorsion (I called it the « piou-piou » to describe the sound effect), easy to ABX at --standard (but need concentration), and today impossible for me to detect at --extreme.

4 last remarks :

· I'm not very concentrated (there is lot of noise around me)
· I used mppenc 1.1, and I used mpppenc 1.06 in july
· I changed the headphone (I'm using my Philips headphone, not the Beyer : but I was able after two days in july to abx the codec with a crappy headphone)
· I have another castanet sample, which is easiest to abx. I should try with it the --extreme ABX test.

The very last one : my english is too poor to explain what I am really meaning. Sorry...

Conclusion : my ears are not able to ABX --extreme with castanets.wav without a good training. But this is not the case with Vorbis (pre-echo) -q8, immediatly perceptible.

Pros And Cons Of Mpc?

Reply #12 – 2002-09-10 19:39:52

Quote

Thanks rjamorim. How do you tag your PsyTel files ?

Well, you can start converting AACs to MP4 files, using latest in_mp4. Go to file info, there you'll find a "Convert to MP4" button. The conversion is lossless - the AAC file is only being wrapped in an MP4 container.

The tagging routines are still being worked on by Menno and the MPEG4ip crew. Software with MP4 tagging routines should be available soon.

Pros And Cons Of Mpc?

Reply #13 – 2002-09-10 19:46:26

Thanks for this precision

Pros And Cons Of Mpc?

Reply #14 – 2002-09-10 20:00:05

Quote

Thanks for this precision

No problem.

Pros And Cons Of Mpc?

Reply #15 – 2002-09-10 20:08:48

If you were happy with mp3 using --r3mix, you will be 10 times happier using musepack

Musepack with the standard settings achieve better quality than most (maybe all?) mp3s produced, it yields even smaller sizes than lame --r3mix... and the encoding speed, out of this world.

On the other hand, just like mp3, mpc uses patented technology. It remains unknown if or when a patent holder of the technology used will claim rights or payment of any sorts. If you didn't care about Thomson or FHG when you encoded your mp3s, probably you won't care here either. Else you should go with Ogg Vorbis. Platform portability for the encoder also remains hindered by the fact that the sources are not open. Another reason to go with Ogg Vorbis if this is required.

And because the format still remains not widely known, it seems that there is not enough interest for hardware support of it. I wondered what happened to the rumors of Harmon Kardon using this format?

To resume:

+ Better quality than mp3.
+ Smaller sizes than mp3.
+ Faster encoding speed than mp3.
= Patented technology, just like mp3.
- Encoder sources not available, unlike mp3.
- Not popular, no hardware support.

BTW: Decoding mpcs, also takes less resources

Pros And Cons Of Mpc?

Reply #16 – 2002-09-10 20:17:34

Quote

Quote
Thanks for this precision

No problem.

I know I Know that you like to see your counter increase

Pros And Cons Of Mpc?

Reply #17 – 2002-09-10 20:27:13

Quote

I know I Know that you like to see your counter increase

Actually, I don't care for it anymore.

I'm 400 posts ahead of the 2nd place.

Pros And Cons Of Mpc?

Reply #18 – 2002-09-10 20:47:04

Quote

· I used mppenc 1.1, and I used mpppenc 1.06 in july

1.06 and 1.1 are the same encoder. They have the same psycho-acoustic and the same
quantizer.

1.1 ist a official release, 1.06 is a beta version.
Some improvements are made in 1.11b, but 1.06 = 1.1, the only difference is a small
compiler upgrade for Linux and a Servicepack for MS VC++ 6.0

Pros And Cons Of Mpc?

Reply #19 – 2002-09-10 21:47:27

Quote

Quote from: guruboolez,Sep 10 2002 - 08:32 PM1.06 and 1.1 are the same encoder. They have the same psycho-acoustic and the same quantizer.[/quote

So, if I can not ABX extreme again, it's because :

· the loss of the benefits of my accoustic memory
· the stupidity of my neighbours, who made too much noise for concentration

Pros And Cons Of Mpc?

Reply #20 – 2002-09-11 05:21:24

guruboolez maybe you could help Garf in his high bitrate tuning of Ogg Vorbis You would certainly be a great asset (or should I say your ears ) to a project such as that. It will also make Ogg Vorbis an even better audio codec!

Laters
AgentMil

Pros And Cons Of Mpc?

Reply #21 – 2002-09-11 05:27:58

Hey, if there's anything from your ears for you to remember, your ears are already very special--your ears have to hear a difference for you to remember it! (it's your memory that's nothing special )

Pros And Cons Of Mpc?

Reply #22 – 2002-09-11 09:27:11

I did a few abx tests with castanets.wav:

MP3 (Lame 3.92): very easy with all alt-presets. "Insane" seems to be a little bit better, but the differences are marginal.
OGG (libVorbis I 20020717): -q6 is rather easy (abx=10/11), though significantly better than any MP3-preset. It gets better with -q8 and -q9, but is still detectable (17/22, 14/18). I was too exhausted to test q10 (stopped at 1/3).
WMA (v8 with Cooledit): 192 kbit is better than MP3-insane, but clearly worse than ogg -q6 (which averages at 207; the WMA-file is still larger though (header?)).
MPC (v1.1): quality 5 (standard) is distinguishable (20/27 started with 0/3), but already quite difficult. I think I heard a slight difference with q6, but failed the abx-test (10/19 started with 1/4). I'll try again later.

Conclusion: MPC > OGG > WMA >> MP3
If you are very sensitive to echo, quality-wise, MPC is your best choice.

Pros And Cons Of Mpc?

Reply #23 – 2002-09-11 13:04:00

Quote

the WMA-file is still larger though (header?)).

No, ABR I think. WMA isn't CBR : between too files with equal length, with the same command line, and a different complexity, you will obtain a different size.

Notice