IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

4 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Wavpack Lossy Quality, As good as OGG, MPC or AAC?
Lev
post Apr 17 2003, 11:59
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 524
Joined: 7-November 02
From: Gloucester, UK
Member No.: 3716



I note that a certain pet bird has the signature line
QUOTE
WavPack (352/448 kbps) lossy for HQ lossy encodings and transcoding
LAME 3.90.2 (by Dibrom) --alt-preset extreme -Z --lowpass 21 or --alt-preset insane --lowpass 21 for my mp3s
MP2 384 kbps stereo for the classical music on my portable
MusePack 1.15r --insane --xlevel for archiving on CDs


Is he right in using WavPack, as opposed to MPC?

Something tells me the higher the bitrate, the more he likes it - There isn't an MP2 encoder as well tuned as Lame, and cranking the bitrate up to 384 isnt going to make the encoder more 'tuned'. And MPC insane / MP3 APX are virtually unnecessary overkills too; YMMV.


--------------------
http://www.megalev.co.uk
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
budgie
post Apr 17 2003, 12:03
Post #2





Group: Members
Posts: 341
Joined: 27-November 02
Member No.: 3901



Lev:

Hahaha... you are very, but very witty pet. Why not trying it yourself? And almost everybody knows that in such high bitrates is LAME no rival for MP2, even if it's not "so tuned". Guess, what is a basis for MPC?

This post has been edited by budgie: Apr 17 2003, 12:05
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Garf
post Apr 17 2003, 12:14
Post #3


Server Admin


Group: Admin
Posts: 4886
Joined: 24-September 01
Member No.: 13



I don't know - what MP2 encoder do you use and what is the typical music style?

The fact that MP2 is the basis for MPC means as much as BladeEnc does for MP3 quality.

I have some opinions about the rest of that signature, but I'll keep those to myself.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jan S.
post Apr 17 2003, 12:30
Post #4





Group: Admin
Posts: 2551
Joined: 26-September 01
From: Denmark
Member No.: 21



First of all a lowpass at 21KHz is insane. Most modern cd players cut at 20KHz and only a few people can hear a difference with a lowpass at 16KHz. The normal lowpass the presets use should be safe enough.

Secondly. Do you consider wavpacks lossy mode to be of a higher quality than mpc? I don't think even the author of wavpack would agree.


Last but not least I would like to see an mp2 encoder that can outperform LAME. Though it shouldn't be impossble I certainly have not heard about such an encoder.
To the claim that mp2 should be good because mpc is I can only say that that is really a flawed argument. Is xing good because LAME is relatively good? MPC is way beyond what mp2 ever was/is.


edit: ok, after search this board it seems that wavplack lossy mode is actually quite good at that high bitrate and a competitor to mpc (though mpc would use a lower bitrate).
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
westgroveg
post Apr 17 2003, 12:33
Post #5





Group: Members
Posts: 1236
Joined: 5-October 01
Member No.: 220



Very original, I don't ever recall some one starting a thread over a member's signature. It will be interesting to see the results MPC+WPL ABX testing. It really annoys me to see: LAME 3.90.2 (by Dibrom) should be 3.90.2 compiled by Dibrom or credit all the lame developers.

HA History X.

Edit: Interesting, Garf edited his post without a "This post has been edited"

This post has been edited by westgroveg: Apr 17 2003, 12:38
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Lev
post Apr 17 2003, 12:38
Post #6





Group: Members
Posts: 524
Joined: 7-November 02
From: Gloucester, UK
Member No.: 3716



QUOTE
The normal lowpass the presets use should be safe enough.

--ARE safe. Its not the lack of High Freq. which lets MP3 down, its the constraints of the format, and resulting smear / pre-echo (which will worsen with upped lowpass). [Luckily, I dont find these annoying]

Where can I get a Wavpack Encoder / Decoder / Plugin? (Yes, I know, UTFS, sorry)

Whats the general consensus for quality?
If this is the standings at the moment:

1. MPC
2. AAC (dont understand the differences between all the different implementations / versions / modes, so sorry if its unfeasible just to write 'AAC')
3. OGG
4. MP3

Where would WavPack lossy show up? 1.5, 2.5, 3.5 or 5

Edit: I've just realised this is liable to generate a huge number of responses from people defending their preferred formats. Can we just stick to the positioning of Wavpack, please wink.gif
Thanks


This post has been edited by Lev: Apr 17 2003, 12:43


--------------------
http://www.megalev.co.uk
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Garf
post Apr 17 2003, 12:50
Post #7


Server Admin


Group: Admin
Posts: 4886
Joined: 24-September 01
Member No.: 13



QUOTE (westgroveg @ Apr 17 2003 - 01:33 PM)
Edit: Interesting, Garf edited his post without a "This post has been edited"

That is default for all moderators I think. There's a checkbox I have to explicitly tick off if I want the 'has been edited' stuff to show up, which I generally won't think about when I fix a small typo or clarification immediately after posting.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Lev
post Apr 17 2003, 13:54
Post #8





Group: Members
Posts: 524
Joined: 7-November 02
From: Gloucester, UK
Member No.: 3716



QUOTE
It will be interesting to see the results MPC+WPL ABX testing.

--Will be provided, probably not over the extreme drinking binge known as Easter


--------------------
http://www.megalev.co.uk
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
budgie
post Apr 17 2003, 14:22
Post #9





Group: Members
Posts: 341
Joined: 27-November 02
Member No.: 3901



QUOTE (Jan S. @ Apr 17 2003 - 03:30 AM)
First of all a lowpass at 21KHz is insane. Most modern cd players cut at 20KHz and only a few people can hear a difference with a lowpass at 16KHz. The normal lowpass the presets use should be safe enough.

Secondly. Do you consider wavpacks lossy mode to be of a higher quality than mpc? I don't think even the author of wavpack would agree.


Last but not least I would like to see an mp2 encoder that can outperform LAME. Though it shouldn't be impossble I certainly have not heard about such an encoder.
To the claim that mp2 should be good because mpc is I can only say that that is really a flawed argument. Is xing good because LAME is relatively good? MPC is way beyond what mp2 ever was/is.


edit: ok, after search this board it seems that wavplack lossy mode is actually quite good at that high bitrate and a competitor to mpc (though mpc would use a lower bitrate).

Most modern crappy-shitty CD players maybe cut at 20 kHz, but not a decent one. Every CD player worth its name has frequency range at least 20-22050 Hz. When is this insane, why AAC/MPC encode at full bandwidth? (Not the standard settings). Ogg also encodes far beyond 21 kHz laugh.gif So it's no insanity.

WavPack lossy mode at this bitrates is for me definitely better than MPC. Although it doesn't mean MPC is wrong or of insufficient quality. My reasons were stated here http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....&f=1&t=8280&hl=

As for the author of WavPack... I think no developer of any codec would express to the another codec in terms of quality. So we should leave it on their decision. But I personally believe the WavPack author knows his codec is of very high quality, no doubt about it.

MP2 was designed for high bitrates, whereas MP3 not. That's why (but not due to this only fact) it sounds good at these bitrates. This is from one of my PMs I got:
QUOTE
MP2 really rules above ~250kbps, indeed. About the same thing as musepack ~180kbps.

If the author allows me it, I will reveal his name.

This post has been edited by budgie: Apr 17 2003, 14:29
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
budgie
post Apr 17 2003, 14:34
Post #10





Group: Members
Posts: 341
Joined: 27-November 02
Member No.: 3901



QUOTE (westgroveg @ Apr 17 2003 - 03:33 AM)
It really annoys me to see: LAME 3.90.2 (by Dibrom) should be 3.90.2 compiled by Dibrom or credit all the lame developers.

Excuse me, sir, I really didn't want to offend your feelings... sad.gif Already corrected to your satisfaction, I hope so... unsure.gif

This post has been edited by budgie: Apr 17 2003, 14:35
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Lev
post Apr 17 2003, 14:57
Post #11





Group: Members
Posts: 524
Joined: 7-November 02
From: Gloucester, UK
Member No.: 3716



QUOTE
Most modern crappy-shitty CD players maybe cut at 20 kHz, but not a decent one. Every CD player worth its name has frequency range at least 20-22050 Hz. When is this insane, why AAC/MPC encode at full bandwidth? (Not the standard settings). Ogg also encodes far beyond 21 kHz  So it's no insanity.

--bah.. You ^might^ be able to hear a 22khz tone, but unless it was just that tone at high intensity and nothing else, you wouldnt hear it in music. No chance.

QUOTE
MP2 was designed for high bitrates, whereas MP3 not. That's why (but not due to this only fact) it sounds good at these bitrates. This is from one of my PMs I got:

QUOTE
MP2 really rules above ~250kbps, indeed. About the same thing as musepack ~180kbps.


If the author allows me it, I will reveal his name.

--

Edit: Sorry, thats over the top, but its well natured, done with a smile and not intending to offend (and its funny)

This post has been edited by Lev: Apr 17 2003, 15:22


--------------------
http://www.megalev.co.uk
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Garf
post Apr 17 2003, 15:02
Post #12


Server Admin


Group: Admin
Posts: 4886
Joined: 24-September 01
Member No.: 13



QUOTE
Most modern crappy-shitty CD players maybe cut at 20 kHz, but not a decent one. Every CD player worth its name has frequency range at least 20-22050 Hz.


The issue is far more complicated than this, in a so much that I wouldn't dare to do a statement who is right here.

QUOTE
When is this insane, why AAC/MPC encode at full bandwidth? (Not the standard settings). Ogg also encodes far beyond 21 kHz  laugh.gif So it's no insanity.


Last I looked, MPC at standard level was lowpassing at 20kHz. Ogg at standard level is below that even. The most aggressive modes are called 'insane' and 'braindead' for a reason.

QUOTE
WavPack lossy mode at this bitrates is for me definitely better than MPC. Although it doesn't mean MPC is wrong or of insufficient quality. My reasons were stated here http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....&f=1&t=8280&hl=


What I read from that is that WavPack is better for you because it gives you the warm fuzzy feeling (even though you admit MPC is tranparent for you).

QUOTE
As for the author of WavPack... I think no developer of any codec would express to the another codec in terms of quality.


What??

QUOTE
MP2 was designed for high bitrates, whereas MP3 not.


This is true. It in no way invalidates the points that were made.

QUOTE
That's why (but not due to this only fact) it sounds good at these bitrates.


I've asked you about the encoder and settings you use. You didn't respond. Please do.

This post has been edited by Garf: Apr 17 2003, 15:03
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Garf
post Apr 17 2003, 15:10
Post #13


Server Admin


Group: Admin
Posts: 4886
Joined: 24-September 01
Member No.: 13



Specifically:

QUOTE
Once the quality exceeds what can be measured in ABX tests, I suspect that most of the people at HA would say that all codecs are the same, but I don't believe that. There is no doubt that WavPack's lossy mode provides better quality than other lossy codecs above some bitrate because it provides a straight line to lossless encoding which the others do not.


There are no logical grounds for either statement.

This post has been edited by Garf: Apr 17 2003, 15:11
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
budgie
post Apr 17 2003, 15:11
Post #14





Group: Members
Posts: 341
Joined: 27-November 02
Member No.: 3901



QUOTE (Lev @ Apr 17 2003 - 05:57 AM)
--bah..  You ^might^ be able to hear a 22khz tone, but unless it was just that tone at high intensity and nothing else, you wouldnt hear it in music.  No chance.

Dear Lev, it really doesn't matter, if you can hear it or not. Or do you think all the developers of these codecs are stupids who don't know what they are doing? Also all the CD players' manufacturers? Or those who record and mix the CDs? Why was SACD or DVD-A developed? Just for the fun of it? This matter was discussed here many a time, I guess. Stop repeat BS you read here and there on the HA and really learn something about the matter. It would really help you, believe me.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Lev
post Apr 17 2003, 15:17
Post #15





Group: Members
Posts: 524
Joined: 7-November 02
From: Gloucester, UK
Member No.: 3716



QUOTE
Stop repeat BS you read here and there on the HA

-- laugh.gif It aint all BS on here!

I'll provide some FLACs for you to ABX next week ref: lowpass @ 20khz

Edit: Noticed this
QUOTE
Or do you think all the developers of these codecs are stupids who don't know what they are doing?
... Ummm, I think of them as Gods to be quite honest, thats why they lowpass in the first place!


This post has been edited by Lev: Apr 17 2003, 15:21


--------------------
http://www.megalev.co.uk
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Garf
post Apr 17 2003, 15:18
Post #16


Server Admin


Group: Admin
Posts: 4886
Joined: 24-September 01
Member No.: 13



QUOTE
Dear Lev, it really doesn't matter, if you can hear it or not. Or do you think all the developers of these codecs are stupids who don't know what they are doing?


See my statement about default MPC and Vorbis lowpass. I did part of the work in tuning Vorbis for high bitrates and I can tell you that the sole reason the highpass is gone in higher quality modes is to prevent people like you from bitching that it lowpasses (since the bitrate cost is negligible, a tradeoff I gladly make).

If you load in a Vorbis file, even encoded at high bitrates, you'll see it'll almost never goes over +- 19kHz.

QUOTE
Also all the CD players' manufacturers? Or those who record and mix the CDs?


Some CD's are pre-lowpased at 20kHz. Don't find them much anymore, but then again, not lowpassing fits in with the trend to compress all dynamics out of them I guess.

QUOTE
Why was SACD or DVD-A developed?


To push DRM.

[quote]
This matter was discussed here many a time, I guess. Stop repeat BS you read here and there on the HA and really learn something about the matter. It would really help you, believe me.
[/qoute]

I couldn't have said it better, why don't you do this?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
budgie
post Apr 17 2003, 15:35
Post #17





Group: Members
Posts: 341
Joined: 27-November 02
Member No.: 3901



Garf:

QUOTE
Last I looked, MPC at standard level was lowpassing at 20kHz. Ogg at standard level is below that even. The most aggressive modes are called 'insane' and 'braindead' for a reason.


If you read carefully, I wrote (Not in the standard settings).

QUOTE
What I read from that is that WavPack is better for you because it gives you the warm fuzzy feeling (even though you admit MPC is tranparent for you).


That's your interpretation. I never said anything like that. I mentioned spatial resolution, no "warm fuzzy feeling".

QUOTE
I've asked you about the encoder and settings you use. You didn't respond. Please do.


You can find it on Roberto's site. Everything else is in my sig.

QUOTE
If you load in a Vorbis file, even encoded at high bitrates, you'll see it'll almost never goes over +- 19kHz.


I tested a lot with Vorbis 1.0 at -q4 and the frequency response war up to 21,3 kHz...

QUOTE
Some CD's are pre-lowpased at 20kHz. Don't find them much anymore, but then again, not lowpassing fits in with the trend to compress all dynamics out of them I guess.


A lot more isn't. No reason for doing it.

QUOTE
To push DRM.


I simply don't believe this is the only reason. It gonna get cracked as everything else.

QUOTE
I couldn't have said it better, why don't you do this?


Just because you are one of the few people here I respect for their work, I won't react to this...
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Garf
post Apr 17 2003, 15:47
Post #18


Server Admin


Group: Admin
Posts: 4886
Joined: 24-September 01
Member No.: 13



QUOTE
If you read carefully, I wrote (Not in the standard settings).


MPC is designed to be transparent at the standard setting. It lowpasses at 20kHz. What does that tell you? I expained you the reasons why Vorbis doesn't. APS also has a lowpass (though there are other pressing reasons in MP3).

QUOTE
That's your interpretation. I never said anything like that. I mentioned spatial resolution, no "warm fuzzy feeling".


If you cannot ABX a difference, all that's left is placebo. Hence a 'warm fuzzy feeling' is the only difference, except that you're calling it 'improved spacial resolution.'

QUOTE
I simply don't believe this is the only reason. It gonna get cracked as everything else.


I hope it gets cracked. But they put CSS on DVD's too. But you are right, another good reason is that they can 'sell people new expensive equipment'. (Those are Frank Klemms words)

QUOTE
Just because you are one of the few people here I respect for their work, I won't react to this...


I've happily flamed Dibrom, JohnV, Monty and David Robinson in the past, so please don't spare me your sound reasoned out arguments, I don't deserve it.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Garf
post Apr 17 2003, 15:51
Post #19


Server Admin


Group: Admin
Posts: 4886
Joined: 24-September 01
Member No.: 13



QUOTE
I tested a lot with Vorbis 1.0 at -q4 and the frequency response war up to 21,3 kHz...


Vorbis 1.0 lowpasses at 20.5kHz at quality 4, and the default quality is 3 IIRC.

(I'm guessing the higher freq you see is actually a compression artifact, or a bad spectrum analyzer)
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Lev
post Apr 17 2003, 15:53
Post #20





Group: Members
Posts: 524
Joined: 7-November 02
From: Gloucester, UK
Member No.: 3716



QUOTE
Why was SACD or DVD-A developed?

Companies are in business to make money

Edit:Actually, I dunno. I need to read up

This post has been edited by Lev: Apr 17 2003, 16:17


--------------------
http://www.megalev.co.uk
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
westgroveg
post Apr 17 2003, 16:11
Post #21





Group: Members
Posts: 1236
Joined: 5-October 01
Member No.: 220



I may be wrong but doesn't SACD & DVD-A allow easier mastering & not allow clipping & compression? Error correction would be much better than current CDDA also surround sound support but obviously they are not compelling enough for general users to switch.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
guruboolez
post Apr 17 2003, 16:14
Post #22





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 3474
Joined: 7-November 01
From: Strasbourg (France)
Member No.: 420



And better spatial restitution (multichannel)
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Garf
post Apr 17 2003, 16:19
Post #23


Server Admin


Group: Admin
Posts: 4886
Joined: 24-September 01
Member No.: 13



QUOTE
I may be wrong but doesn't SACD & DVD-A allow easier mastering & not allow clipping & compression?


It's not about capabilities - CDDA has those as well, at best it's slightly harder for stupid mastering engineers to shoot themselves in the foot. The only 'advantage' is that early on there will be incentive to properly master SACD/DVDA (and make even worse CDDA) to demonstrate the 'advantages' of the new formats.

You can make shit hot SACD and DVDA without dynamics as well, I'm sure it wont take long before they are commonplace as well.

QUOTE
Error correction would be much better than current CDDA


Is it of any significance? Many CDDA's nowadays have crippled error correction for 'copy protection'.

QUOTE
surround sound support


Ok, maybe a small advantage smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Ardax
post Apr 17 2003, 16:32
Post #24





Group: Members
Posts: 233
Joined: 3-December 01
Member No.: 578



QUOTE (Garf @ Apr 17 2003 - 11:19 AM)
QUOTE

Error correction would be much better than current CDDA


Is it of any significance? Many CDDA's nowadays have crippled error correction for 'copy protection'.

True, but with DRM integrated into the disc format, we can have our error correction back. tongue.gif :duck n' run:
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Messer
post Apr 17 2003, 17:28
Post #25





Group: Members
Posts: 568
Joined: 6-May 02
From: Warsaw / Poland
Member No.: 1977



QUOTE (Garf @ Apr 17 2003 - 03:47 PM)
But you are right, another good reason is that they can 'sell people new expensive equipment'. (Those are Frank Klemms words)

And don't forget about possibility to once again sell people all those albums they already bought (already more than once in some cases). It's easy once you make them belive that new format sounds much better.

I wonder how long we'll wait for format that "breaks through some significiant limitations" of DVD-A/SACD laugh.gif ph34r.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

4 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 26th December 2014 - 00:44