Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: MP3 vs MPC compressing heavy metal (Read 2201 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

MP3 vs MPC compressing heavy metal

I compressed Kai Hansen's Gamma Ray album - "No World Order" and many other Metal gods such as Rob Halford's "Resurrection" using MusePack (1.14,--quality 6 --xlevel) and
MP3 (LAME 3.90.2,--alt-preset standard) and after the process finished,I became surprised because MPC compression gave me files about 203-210 kbit/s (in my opinion --quality 6 is transparent for most people) and MP3 produced very huge results at about 256 kbps (190 (simple intro)-260 kbit/s).
What's the point ? Can you explain me reasons why --alt-preset standard (designed to produce files about 192 kbit/s)
give huge results with this kind of music ?
I suggest using MPC for heavy metal-it's much better than MP3-LAME (apart from no hardware support).

MP3 vs MPC compressing heavy metal

Reply #1 –
Heavy metal is not easiest to encode, because of the many transients (several per note) and fast-changing harmonics.

I've had a great experience compressing metal with Musepack too. When I used LAME on the same samples, I noticed that very often the attacks were a tiny bit mangled, and the sound was very slightly softened (up to 320CBR, except for --alt-preset insane which managed to be transparent for me).