IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
What settings to mp3s(320kcbr)convert to MPC?
fantasynow
post Nov 10 2003, 06:19
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 4
Joined: 10-November 03
Member No.: 9755



I want to covert my mp3s to mpc,mp3s is encoded by lame CBR320K,what setting is best ?
Thanks! rolleyes.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
zver
post Nov 10 2003, 06:22
Post #2





Group: Members
Posts: 174
Joined: 12-June 03
From: toronto
Member No.: 7141



why would you do that......??????anyway..q5 is more then enough...
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
fantasynow
post Nov 10 2003, 06:31
Post #3





Group: Members
Posts: 4
Joined: 10-November 03
Member No.: 9755



QUOTE (zver @ Nov 9 2003, 09:22 PM)
why would you do that......??????anyway..q5 is more then enough...

MPC file is smailler than MP3S,HD space is not enough wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lucpes
post Nov 10 2003, 07:32
Post #4





Group: Members
Posts: 517
Joined: 9-October 01
Member No.: 254



If I were in your boots I'd buy another HDD. You will be sorry later if you convert. Transcoding is no good unless for portable use and in that case you'd do the oposite (ex from mpc to mp3).

Use ogg at quality 4 instead of mpc for more space savings.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
tigre
post Nov 10 2003, 10:50
Post #5


Moderator


Group: Members
Posts: 1434
Joined: 26-November 02
Member No.: 3890



QUOTE (lucpes @ Nov 10 2003, 08:32 AM)
Use ogg at quality 4 instead of mpc for more space savings.

Why? Rjamorim's 128kbps test showed that MPC gives at least the same quality for 128kbps and higher. wink.gif

BTW - As noone has mentioned it before: Better encode directly from CD! B)


--------------------
Let's suppose that rain washes out a picnic. Who is feeling negative? The rain? Or YOU? What's causing the negative feeling? The rain or your reaction? - Anthony De Mello
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
karmakillernz
post Nov 10 2003, 14:49
Post #6





Group: Members
Posts: 78
Joined: 15-December 02
Member No.: 4083



I agree with lucpes on this. Ogg Vorbis (around quality 4) would be the better of the two to transcode into, athough transcoding should always be a last resort. If you have the original cds, re-rip and re-encode, or else I just strongly recommend you leave them and buy a new harddrive or burn some on a cd to free up space.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ScorLibran
post Nov 10 2003, 15:40
Post #7





Group: Banned
Posts: 769
Joined: 1-July 03
Member No.: 7495



If we're talking 128kbps nominal territory, then I'll have to agree with lucpes and karmakillernz and recommend Vorbis over MPC, but perhaps at -q 4.25 instead of -q 4. Note the results of Roberto's 128kbps Extension Test.

The following does not take into account sound quality issues from transcoding one lossy format to another. Only specific test results would show these issues, such as the one sthayashi is running now, which will be complete on Nov 30th. It only discusses Vorbis vs. MPC at a 128kbps nominal bitrate in terms of disc space conservation.

In the 128kbps test, MPC had an average overall bitrate of 146.1 across all samples tested, while Vorbis averaged 140.1 across all samples tested, and remember that both of these formats are tied (within the margin of error) for sound quality at these average bitrates. So using this average as an example, a four minute song would encode in MPC in 4.280MB, while the same song would encode to 4.104MB in Vorbis. IIRC, MPC -q4.0 and Vorbis -q 4.25 were used to reach as close as possible to the target bitrate on the test samples. Even though MPC was using a slightly lower quality setting, it still clocked a slightly higher average bitrate across the board.

Vorbis achieves the same sound quality in about 96% the disc space that MPC would take in this bitrate range. This assumes that calling Vorbis and MPC "tied" is appropriate because of the error margin overlaps. This all may be too close to consider to be a factor for deciding between the formats, unless you're really pushing your maximum capacity, and assuming the average bitrate differential would remain close to steady between the formats for similar music types.

AAC and WMA Pro have average bitrates lower still in the test, but this discussion is in the context of MPC and Vorbis only.

Just something to think about...
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
fantasynow
post Nov 11 2003, 04:42
Post #8





Group: Members
Posts: 4
Joined: 10-November 03
Member No.: 9755



128 test

file size: AAC Lame MPC Ogg WMApro Blade

Average 129 124.5 146.1 140.1 128 128

MPC is a little better than Ogg and WMApro,but MPC and Ogg files size is more than WMApro. wink.gif

why has 200kbps Extension Public Listening Test?

This post has been edited by fantasynow: Nov 11 2003, 04:43
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ScorLibran
post Nov 11 2003, 08:23
Post #9





Group: Banned
Posts: 769
Joined: 1-July 03
Member No.: 7495



QUOTE (fantasynow @ Nov 10 2003, 10:42 PM)
MPC is a little better than Ogg and WMApro,but MPC and Ogg files size is more than WMApro. wink.gif

Actually, since the ANOVA (ANalysis Of VAriance) method was used to define the range of "statistical noise" in the distribution of results for each codec tested, MPC, Vorbis, AAC and WMA Pro were tied. Roberto stated that in this post as well. The ranges which show the 95% confidence level in the statisical analysis of the results mean that if the test were run again, any of these four codecs may show markings a little higher in the chart than others, differently than shown in this test, but since they would still have overlapping ranges, they would still be tied.

Hence, my point is that since MPC and Vorbis were statistically tied for sound quality in the 128kbps listening test, that Vorbis' slightly smaller filesizes give it a slight advantage. However, I acknowledge that this advantage is only slight, and may very well be insignificant for all except those trying to fit every bit of music they can onto a HDD. It also assumes that, since the test used samples from a variety of music types, that it represents what should be close to the average bitrates for encoding these types of music (collectively). The chart at the bottom of this page could be used to match a particular type of music to the samples of that type to more closely estimate the likely average bitrate for any particular codec tested.


Edit: OK...time to think about TOS#6...new thread to discuss this topic here.

This post has been edited by ScorLibran: Nov 12 2003, 11:36
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
user
post Nov 12 2003, 10:14
Post #10





Group: Members
Posts: 873
Joined: 12-October 01
From: the great wide open
Member No.: 277



It is funny to read here the statements, that mpc and ogg are tied at bitrates from 128 - 140, but Ogg would produce "a little smaller filesizes",
or the statement about Ogg at q4 and mpc at q4.25.

1. Those quality scales are made for each codec, so you cannot compare and tell, Ogg at q 4.0 and mpc at q 4.0 would have or would have not ! the same quality of sound, or the same (target-) bitrate !

2. I recall having read in that listening test, that mpc was rated slightly better than Ogg in the samples.
So, given by numbers only a small difference, but it was a listened one.

3. It is somehow a pity, that the mpc and ogg files had mostly around 140 kbit, whereas it was called a 128k test, and other codecs had 128k in there.
The difference of 6k should be neglectable between 140 and 146 mpc and ogg, but in fact it would be better for test compoarisons, if each sample would be adjusted for each codec, to reach a given target bitrate like 128 OR 140 in practice.

So that not like here, people discuss later on about the 6 kbit difference between mpc and ogg in that test, and draw conclusions, where no conclusions can be drawn.




@ the threadstarter:

keep the 320k mp3s.
Encoding mp3 to mpc is evil, it introduces bad artefacts.
The other way around, mpc to mp3, would be acceptable.


or encode directly from original CD again.


--------------------
www.High-Quality.ch.vu -- High Quality Audio Archiving Tutorials
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
tigre
post Nov 12 2003, 13:50
Post #11


Moderator


Group: Members
Posts: 1434
Joined: 26-November 02
Member No.: 3890



QUOTE (user @ Nov 12 2003, 11:14 AM)
Encoding mp3 to mpc is evil, it introduces bad artefacts.
The other way around, mpc to mp3, would be acceptable.

I guess you're talking about mp3 (lame 320kbps CBR) -> mpc (~ q4 - q5) here. But what settings for mpc -> mp3 conversion did you have in mind when writing this statement?

Anyway, I haven't seen any ABX tests (CD -> mpc q4-5) vs. (CD -> lame api -> mpc q4-5) so far. As you seem to be sure about that, could you please point me to some links / tests etc.?


--------------------
Let's suppose that rain washes out a picnic. Who is feeling negative? The rain? Or YOU? What's causing the negative feeling? The rain or your reaction? - Anthony De Mello
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
user
post Nov 12 2003, 14:13
Post #12





Group: Members
Posts: 873
Joined: 12-October 01
From: the great wide open
Member No.: 277



I recall, that the description/ABX of those transcodings and results are somewhere buried here in old posts/threads.


--------------------
www.High-Quality.ch.vu -- High Quality Audio Archiving Tutorials
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

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: 22nd September 2014 - 00:02