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: MP3Pro quality vs. MP3 (Read 10944 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

MP3Pro quality vs. MP3

Has anyone tested MP3Pro enough to judge the equivalent MP3 (LAME CBR) quality at MP3Pro 80 and MP3Pro 96???? 

I'm interested in the high compression aspect of MP3Pro but cannot compromise quality any lower than MP3 LAME CBR128 and even that is a stretch. MP3 LAME CBR160 sounds great to me and CBR192 sounds almost perfect. My ears are not strong enough to need APS or APE pre-sets.

MP3Pro quality vs. MP3

Reply #1 –
Simply put, mp3PRO was never designed with high quality in mind.  It is only useful for preserving more quality at low bitrates.

And I'm not sure why you'd be reluctant to use --alt-preset standard, since the files usually result around 160-192Kbps...

EDIT: MPC --standard will usually take less space thatn MP3 --alt-preset standard, and for better quality too.  If you're not worried about switching to a hardware-unsupported codec, I'd go for MPC.

MP3Pro quality vs. MP3

Reply #2 –
I know what MP3Pro was designed for - higher quality at smaller file size. It was never designed to compete with MP3 CBR 192, let alone MP3 APS or APE. My question is - does it compare to MP3 CBR 128 or CBR 160 at a much smaller file size? If yes, than this could be a good thing for portable use (only a couple of ports right now, but more on the way unlike OGG).

And we must listen to very different music, because my APS files average around 240. Even APS with the "y" switch, the files average around 185.

If MP3Pro at 80 or 96 could achieve MP3 128 or better quality, I would find it very intriguing for portable use - which is where I listen to most of my music.  Those are some tiny file sizes.

That is my question - what is the MP3 equivalent? I already know its not going to be anything 192 or higher. 

MP3Pro quality vs. MP3

Reply #3 –
Ogg Vorbis is a great alternative in low bitrates. I've ripped many cds for my Pontis SP600 in Quality 2 (about 96kbps - much better than mp3pro at this bitrate).

Pontis and many other portables will support Vorbis soon!

MP3Pro quality vs. MP3

Reply #4 –
Quote
Has anyone tested MP3Pro enough to judge the equivalent MP3 (LAME CBR) quality at MP3Pro 80 and MP3Pro 96???? 

Well, I tested (blind) some times ago a lame --preset 130 encoding and a mp3PRO VBR encoding that reached the same bitrate. LAME was the winner, especially on loud tracks (I don't know why, but mp3PRO is not really good on metal for example, but much better on low volume passages).

I suppose that the overall quality a good mp3 at 130 kbps can't be reached with mp3pro, especially at 80 or 96 kbps.
Wavpack Hybrid -c4hx6

MP3Pro quality vs. MP3

Reply #5 –
Quote
If MP3Pro at 80 or 96 could achieve MP3 128 or better quality, I would find it very intriguing for portable use - which is where I listen to most of my music.  Those are some tiny file sizes.

You do realize that mp3pro is supported by hardly any portables, right?  All portables play them back, but without specific mp3pro support they sound similar to a normal mp3 of the same bitrate.

You could try wma.  In a pinch it at 80-96kpbs it might sound relatively close to a 128kpbs mp3  Personally, even on my flash portable I use 128k abr mp3s as a minimum, and I can fit quite alot of music in my meagre 192mb space.

MP3Pro quality vs. MP3

Reply #6 –
Yes, I know portable support is limited right now, with only RCA and Phillips supporting it - but more seems to be on the way. Unlike OGG - which has no support. (I'm not bashing OGG, its a great format, it just has no hardware support).

I've tested MP3Pro at 96 and it sounds close to MP3 128. MP3Pro 64 is NOT MP3 128 despite the claims. Interested to hear from others.

And yes....make sure you play your MP3Pro files on an MP3Pro enabled application or it ignores the high frequncies and sounds really bad.


Its all relative on what you can fit on a 128MB card. I look to get 50 songs on flash device and 2000 on a hard drive player. Some people are happy with 20 or 25 (like my wife). Its all in your preference.

MP3Pro quality vs. MP3

Reply #7 –
Curious, what software application supports encoding MP3Pro VBR?

MP3Pro quality vs. MP3

Reply #8 –
Quote
Has anyone tested MP3Pro enough to judge the equivalent MP3 (LAME CBR) quality at MP3Pro 80 and MP3Pro 96???? 

No, but at 64 kbps.

Quote
I'm interested in the high compression aspect of MP3Pro but cannot compromise quality any lower than MP3 LAME CBR128 and even that is a stretch. MP3 LAME CBR160 sounds great to me and CBR192 sounds almost perfect. My ears are not strong enough to need APS or APE pre-sets.


Coding Technologies claim that 64 kbps mp3PRO files would sound "a little bit better than 96 kbps MP3" which I can confirm. So if you add this difference of ~30 kbps to higher bitrates, a 96 kbps mp3PRO file should sound approximately equal to a 128 kbps MP3 file. But it's of course better to test yourself if this is true. As you might have read before, this doesn't work for higher mp3PRO bitrates like ~128 kbps where the SBR technology no longer helps and rather colours the sound than enhancing it compared to normal MP3 or other formats at this bitrate.

By the way, there are 4-5 different portables for mp3PRO available right now, 2 from Philips and 3 from RCA, also a DVD player from RCA. This will become more in the future probably. A new mp3PRO software is Complete mp3PRO from iMPload, see the news I posted some days ago that was moved to this board, I think.
ZZee ya, Hans-Jürgen
BLUEZZ BASTARDZZ - "That lil' ol' ZZ Top cover band from Hamburg..."
INDIGO ROCKS - "Down home rockin' blues. Tasty as strudel."

MP3Pro quality vs. MP3

Reply #9 –
Quote
Curious, what software application supports encoding MP3Pro VBR?

CoolEdit 2 was the first.
Now, MusicMatch Jukebox support VBR encoding, and maybe Steinberg MyMp3PRO v.4
Wavpack Hybrid -c4hx6

MP3Pro quality vs. MP3

Reply #10 –
WMA is probably a better choice here.  Its competitive at those bit rates and has more hardware support then mp3pro ever will.  Not to mention its free.

MP3Pro quality vs. MP3

Reply #11 –
Quote
Yes, I know portable support is limited right now, with only RCA and Phillips supporting it - but more seems to be on the way.

I don't know about that.  I think mp3pro has been leapfrogged by aac+ and ogg and very few companies will start supporting it.

If you do take the plunge, watch out for those rca portables: they have very intrusive drm.

MP3Pro quality vs. MP3

Reply #12 –
Quote
Coding Technologies claim that 64 kbps mp3PRO files would sound "a little bit better than 96 kbps MP3" which I can confirm. So if you add this difference of ~30 kbps to higher bitrates, a 96 kbps mp3PRO file should sound approximately equal to a 128 kbps MP3 file.

lame isn't tuned for and aimed at bitrates of 128 kbps and below. so it will sound a bit crappy at 96 kbit (which can be outperformed by a 30 kbit lower mp3pro).

at 128 kbps ABR it isn't that easy anymore to outperform lame, because at this bitrate (and of course higher) it starts to be good.

so you can't "scale" the 30 kbps advantage to higher bitrates

MP3Pro quality vs. MP3

Reply #13 –
Quote
so you can't "scale" the 30 kbps advantage to higher bitrates

That's what I wrote.
ZZee ya, Hans-Jürgen
BLUEZZ BASTARDZZ - "That lil' ol' ZZ Top cover band from Hamburg..."
INDIGO ROCKS - "Down home rockin' blues. Tasty as strudel."

MP3Pro quality vs. MP3

Reply #14 –
I think what make mp3pro not good is it's sbr technology that will never produce pro sound. I just wonder if it's possible to change sbr part. If sbr part only at 14-16 kHz and higher, I think the sound will be better.

MP3Pro quality vs. MP3

Reply #15 –
Quote
I think what make mp3pro not good is it's sbr technology that will never produce pro sound. I just wonder if it's possible to change sbr part. If sbr part only at 14-16 kHz and higher, I think the sound will be better.

I thought it was rather the opposite -- that SBR is what makes MP3Pro good at its target bitrates in the first place.  If your argument is that it makes MP3Pro worse at high bitrates, that may well be, but it's not targetted at them anyway (and an easy fix would just to turn it off above 128kbps or something).

MP3Pro quality vs. MP3

Reply #16 –
Yeah! You're right. I meant in 128 kbps or higher mp3pro might sound better if the sbr part lie on the higher frequency. IMHO, SBR could be used to reproduce high freq efficiently, but it should be used at not very audible frequency.

MP3Pro quality vs. MP3

Reply #17 –
Unfortunately,  that is not possible with SBR right now (reproducing of high frequencies,  say 16- 20 kHz) if you encode original to 44.1 kHz.

SBR right now supports only "dual rate" mode, where  core stream (MP3 or AAC) is encoded at half of the sampling rate (so, for 44.1 kHz mp3Pro you have 22.05 kHz MP3,  with 11.025 kHz  the highest possible frequency to reproduce with MP3)

In order to use 128 kbps / 44.1 kHz MP3  you would need 88.2 kHz SBR operation, which is , IMHO not supported by the MP3Standard. Or 32/64 kHz as the lowest possible combination.


There was a proposal for "Single Rate" SBR, where core codec and SBR post-procession would operate at the same sampling rate,  but some MPEG members opposed this, and therefore it has been removed from the MPEG-4 HE AAC standard (which contains SBR)

A pity, that could be used at, for example, 128 Kbps, where SBR would be used to recreate frequencies above 15-16 kHz,  or even ~14 kHz, and the core codec would be relatively free of annoying artifacts.

MP3Pro quality vs. MP3

Reply #18 –
Quote
Ogg Vorbis is a great alternative in low bitrates. I've ripped many cds for my Pontis SP600 in Quality 2 (about 96kbps - much better than mp3pro at this bitrate).

Pontis and many other portables will support Vorbis soon!

agree.
It's My Life,
It's Now Or Never,
I Ain't Gonna Live Forever,
I Just Want To Live While I'm Alive.

MP3Pro quality vs. MP3

Reply #19 –
Quote
A pity, that could be used at, for example, 128 Kbps, where SBR would be used to recreate frequencies above 15-16 kHz,  or even ~14 kHz, and the core codec would be relatively free of annoying artifacts.

I thought I've read somewhere (probably on the Coding Technologies site) that the cutoff for the core part (be it MP3 or AAC) would be raised for higher bitrates, so that SBR would only be used for higher frequencies. Or is this the removed "single rate mode" you mentioned?

So Nero Digital will also cutoff the core AAC part at 11 kHz, even if I want to use SBR at a bitrate of ~96 kbps? 
ZZee ya, Hans-Jürgen
BLUEZZ BASTARDZZ - "That lil' ol' ZZ Top cover band from Hamburg..."
INDIGO ROCKS - "Down home rockin' blues. Tasty as strudel."

MP3Pro quality vs. MP3

Reply #20 –
SBR cut-off depends on two parameters:

1. Sampling rate of the core codec (if it is, say, 24 kHz, it can't be more than 12 kHz, of course)

2. Bit rate and average NMR - this can be either fixed, or in some advanced models - variable, so if encoder runs out of bits too much, SBR range would be increased and vice versa.

If you want to have SBR from 14 kHz to, say, 20 kHz,  core codec  sampling rate must be able to handle 14 kHz - and that is 32 kHz, which means 64 kHz  SBR file.

Unfortunately,  single rate SBR was withdrawn - so 44.1/44.1 configuration is impossible, and I am not sure what the reasons are, and hence I don't want to speculate.  Maybe there were some other problems with single-rate SBR  that prevented it being part of the standard.

Quote
So Nero Digital will also cutoff the core AAC part at 11 kHz, even if I want to use SBR at a bitrate of ~96 kbps?


Yes.  At least in current development version - cut off is exactly 11.025 (no cut-off) kHz for 96 kbps  core codec.  SBR covers 11.025 - 22.05 kHz range.  I think that "sweet spot" for AAC+SBR lies between 40-70 kbps.

MP3Pro quality vs. MP3

Reply #21 –
Actually, I think there is a way to make SBR useful at high frequencies only - but I will have to study that approach a little

MP3Pro quality vs. MP3

Reply #22 –
This thread has generated quite an interesting discussion 

MP3Pro quality vs. MP3

Reply #23 –
It seems that there is an easy way to do SBR for highest-frequencies only, at least with HE AAC (don't know about mp3Pro, though)

Suppose you have content at 48 kHz

- Set encoder settings to 128 kbps, Stereo

- Upsample content to 96 kHz with SBR filterbank (easy)

- Encode range of 14-22.05 kHz with SBR, and feed core AAC encoder with downsampled (back to 48 kHz, just by discarding upper QMF bands) and lowpassed signal

In the decoder:

- Decode the signal with usual methods (core 48 kHz,  SBR 96 kHz)

- Discard the upper 32 subband channels,  and get 48 kHz signal


I think that will do the trick.
 

MP3Pro quality vs. MP3

Reply #24 –
Is SBR that used in HE AAC the same with mp3pro? Is it possible to modify SBR encoder code in mp3pro?