IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Is MPC better than mp3?
Grand Dizzy
post Oct 24 2004, 20:25
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 118
Joined: 3-November 03
Member No.: 9637



I just noticed in the polls that more people use mpc than mp3!

Bearing in mind that I know nothing about mpc, could anyone explain the benefits over mp3?

I use alt-preset extreme... does anyone recommend I upgrade to mpc?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies
pepoluan
post Apr 4 2006, 22:56
Post #2





Group: Members
Posts: 1455
Joined: 22-November 05
From: Jakarta
Member No.: 25929



Sometimes I wonder...

... if a codec (name your favorite here, I have mine) already performs transparently at a lower bitrate...

... then why encode at a higher bitrate?


--------------------
Nobody is Perfect.
I am Nobody.

http://pandu.poluan.info
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
StewartR
post Apr 10 2006, 13:50
Post #3





Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 27-February 06
From: Maidenhead, UK
Member No.: 28124



QUOTE (pepoluan @ Apr 4 2006, 10:56 PM) *
Sometimes I wonder...

... if a codec (name your favorite here, I have mine) already performs transparently at a lower bitrate...

... then why encode at a higher bitrate?


OK, I'm only relatively new here, but I'd like to offer two answers to the question posed by pepoluan. I'f I'm talking rubbish then I'd be very grateful if a more knowledgeable / experienced HA member could point out my errors.

Firstly, transparency isn't just a function of how good your ears are. It's also affected by how good your equipment is. If you upgrade your equipment, music that previously sounded transparent might no longer sound transparent. But if you encode at a higher bitrate than you might have thought necessary, you have a bit of insurance in that direction.

Secondly, if you want to transcode down to a lower bitrate (e.g. to use on a DAP) then a higher bitrate to start with will hopefully give a better end result.

So for example I tend to encode music to MP3 using LAME -V0. Given the quality of my audio equipment, and the fact that I don't often just sit and listen carefully to music, I strongly suspect -V2 would be transparent to me for most if not all practical purposes. (I haven't done any serious listening tests to confirm this, and I can't be bothered to. Life's too short.) But I can afford the extra 25% storage space required by -V0, and that reassures me that next time I do want to listen hard to something I won't be bothered by compression artefacts. Also, when I want to transcode down to -V5 for use on my Walkman, I expect to get better-sounding results transcoding down from -V0 than from -V2. (Again, I haven't tested this and I don't want to test it.)

Basically that extra 25% storage space buys me a form of insurance. Does this make any sense at all?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
pepoluan
post Apr 10 2006, 21:59
Post #4





Group: Members
Posts: 1455
Joined: 22-November 05
From: Jakarta
Member No.: 25929



QUOTE (StewartR @ Apr 10 2006, 07:50 PM) *
Firstly, transparency isn't just a function of how good your ears are. It's also affected by how good your equipment is. If you upgrade your equipment, music that previously sounded transparent might no longer sound transparent. But if you encode at a higher bitrate than you might have thought necessary, you have a bit of insurance in that direction.
Well, it actually boils down to your ears then smile.gif whether you can hear the difference between the lossy and the lossless encoded file. The equipment only helps.

But anyways, of course I am talking about same equipment here. It is absolutely pointless trying to compare my iPaq2210 output (fed into an amp & speaker) with my desktop computer output...

QUOTE
Secondly, if you want to transcode down to a lower bitrate (e.g. to use on a DAP) then a higher bitrate to start with will hopefully give a better end result.
Repeat after me: Transcoding from lossy to lossy - bad. Transcode from lossless to lossy - good. biggrin.gif


--------------------
Nobody is Perfect.
I am Nobody.

http://pandu.poluan.info
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
user
post Apr 11 2006, 11:16
Post #5





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



No,
extrapolation of those tests (not only of those, please study some theory of experimentals) is only funny and not scientific,
not worth being posted.
With all the scientific/theoretical and experimental approaches of HA, this "extrapolation" is not possible.

You could "extrapolate" old tests with new tests, if you would have included the "comparable anchor format", ie. a tested encoder of an old test together with the new test probants.
Then you could say, that eg. 4.7 rating of new test matches 4.5 rating of old test or whatever, and to watch, how a relative ranking of newer formats has developed towards older formats/encoders.

Please reread my posts during the preparation of the 128k multiformat test, I asked for including some "comparable anchor" to the new test, but the conductors haven't taken this idea.
There wasn't said (neither by kwanbis, nor by Roberto), that comparable anchor is not necessary to compare new with old test, due to this or that fact or argument, reason.

So, to come now with a comparison between old and new tests, reveals, that those guys, who already creeped into mpc threads in past, to argue against mpc, when mpc had still the crown alone, are continuing now with their propaganda. Sorry, fitting together those old and new tests graphs, sounds like cheap marketing.


--------------------
www.High-Quality.ch.vu -- High Quality Audio Archiving Tutorials
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Garf
post Apr 12 2006, 12:58
Post #6


Server Admin


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



QUOTE (user @ Apr 11 2006, 12:16 PM) *
No,
extrapolation of those tests (not only of those, please study some theory of experimentals) is only funny and not scientific,
not worth being posted.
With all the scientific/theoretical and experimental approaches of HA, this "extrapolation" is not possible.

You could "extrapolate" old tests with new tests, if you would have included the "comparable anchor format", ie. a tested encoder of an old test together with the new test probants.
Then you could say, that eg. 4.7 rating of new test matches 4.5 rating of old test or whatever, and to watch, how a relative ranking of newer formats has developed towards older formats/encoders.


I'm sorry, but I know of no formal proof that this or that extrapolation is a valid one and this or that one isn't. If you're looking for black and white, there won't be any.

The conditions for an extrapolation to be valid are pretty much the same that are required for the test itself to be valid. There must not be a way to show how it could, in a manner that has a reasonable likelihood of occuring, lead to wrong results. More abstractly and generally, what determines the goodness of a test is whether the results will lead to consistent improvement. And more specifically again: a test that is not solid wouldn't be able to lead to improvement at some point, or at the very least, it can be shown that this would happen.

What people will consider a valid test is also based on the above; but the above is not a black and white issue: the likelyhood the results could get flawed can vary, and the cirumstances under which it can happen, could too. By clearly stating the methodology, you allow everyone to make a decision for himself whether they consider the flaws important or not. If you use a good methodology, most people will consider that is not the case, and your results will be "accepted".

I wrote the above directly concerning this thread, but if you think about it, it's exactly the same what happens in science. If you call it unscientific and funny, you are wrong.

In a discussion, it's valid not to accept a conclusion, extrapolation or test results. But be aware that any data is still better than no data at all (and that's something different from "data so invalid you could as well toss a coin"). Waiving a result because of a minor issue is something you can do, but unless you're willing to come up with some results of your own, don't expect people to take you very seriously.

I'd like to see rjamorim's data and reasoning that leads him to believe an extrapolation would be valid. If we see it, we can think about what the flaws could be, how likely they are, and consequently, how much attention this extrapolation should get.

This post has been edited by Garf: Apr 12 2006, 13:04
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
user
post Apr 12 2006, 13:47
Post #7





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



Thanks Garf for questioning, what rjamorim leads to the opinion, that putting both graphics side by side could be a valid extrapolation.
If he would have continued defending this assumption, I'd asked it myself.

As a long time is between those listening tests,
different samples,
different encoders (ie. no anchor encoder),
different people,
maybe same people who aged during both tests,
it is very unlikely to be able to compare one encoders' absolute ranking ("4.x") of the old test with other encoders' ranking ("4.y") at another test like done in that side-by-side-graph.

morbidini wrote :
Maybe extrapolation could be done, but not as slightly as just putting both graphics side by side.

This could not have been written better.

Even kwanbis wrote at Apr 2 2006, 03:02 AM Post #12 to his (imo) unlucky 2-graph-comparison :
it could be argued that diferent samples were used ... even diferent people probably submited results ... anyway ....


edit addon:

hm, some post above kwanbis compared statistical listening tests with race laps and measuring times.
hmhm.
Any comments (necessary)?

The point of abx and ABC/HR here has been and is, that the results are valid for the samples, the tested encoders, tested people, the test situation as such, and not more.
The public multiformat tests with a bigger group of testers mirrors the ranking of general people's impression, but only focussed on the actual test (conditions).

This post has been edited by user: Apr 12 2006, 13:56


--------------------
www.High-Quality.ch.vu -- High Quality Audio Archiving Tutorials
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Garf
post Apr 12 2006, 13:59
Post #8


Server Admin


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



QUOTE (user @ Apr 12 2006, 02:47 PM) *
As a long time is between those listening tests,
different samples,
different encoders (ie. no anchor encoder),
different people,
maybe same people who aged during both tests,


Some of these don't matter at all (different people for example), some may not matter, some may matter a lot.

My corncern is that I believe people tend to rate the encoders more against each other, rather than against the ratings scale itself ("Perceptual but not annoying" etc). I know that I myself have this tendency, and I have participated in the tests.

*BUT* transparency is a hard anchor, since it's always 5.0 in any test. This may be enough to anchor the high bitrate tests together.

I'd just like to see more data so I can reach my own conclusion.


QUOTE (kwanbis @ Apr 12 2006, 02:49 PM) *
QUOTE (Garf @ Apr 12 2006, 12:45 PM) *

I'm sorry, but this is a stupid comparison, because the last sentence is wrong, unless you have some evidence that statistical sampling theory is fatally flawed.

well, statistics have proven wrong many times. Thats why, for example, nobody can predict anything 100% with statistics.


Statistics proven wrong? Eh?

If you say something is true with 95% confidence, you know you will be wrong 5% of the time.

How can you prove that wrong? As I already asked, are you going to rewrite mathematics?

Statistical sampling is a known method, for which we know the pitfalls and accuracy very well. It tells us we don't need to ask the entire population of the world something in order to make a statement about it. You haven't come one inch closer to supporting your original entirely wrong statement, and you won't ever get an inch closer, either.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Posts in this topic
- Grand Dizzy   Is MPC better than mp3?   Oct 24 2004, 20:25
- - Mono   Please search. Some great threads have already cov...   Oct 24 2004, 20:45
- - rjamorim   That poll only applies to Hydrogenaudio. It makes ...   Oct 24 2004, 20:46
|- - AtaqueEG   QUOTE (rjamorim @ Oct 24 2004, 01:46 PM)That ...   Apr 1 2006, 17:03
- - Grand Dizzy   Thanks, guys.   Oct 24 2004, 22:00
- - hybridfan   It sounds amazing and what really surprises me is ...   Apr 1 2006, 13:33
- - Sebastian Mares   And you had to bump a two years old topic just to ...   Apr 1 2006, 13:43
- - guruboolez   I guess that creating a new thread was not enough ...   Apr 1 2006, 13:47
- - NeoRenegade   Damned if you do, damned if you don't. It...   Apr 1 2006, 15:27
- - flipik   QUOTE (Grand Dizzy @ Oct 24 2004, 09:25 PM)I ...   Apr 1 2006, 15:43
|- - tomelephant   QUOTE (flipik @ Apr 1 2006, 22:43) QUOTE ...   Jun 9 2008, 17:01
- - dreamliner77   I still have everything in mpc and continue to enc...   Apr 1 2006, 17:50
- - kwanbis   it could be argued that diferent samples were used...   Apr 2 2006, 02:02
- - DickxLaurent   Maybe it's time for a new lossy encoder poll. ...   Apr 2 2006, 03:01
- - vinnie97   Yea, but it's over a year old...with much more...   Apr 2 2006, 04:05
|- - atici   QUOTE (vinnie97 @ Apr 1 2006, 10:05 PM)Yea, b...   Apr 2 2006, 06:27
|- - guruboolez   QUOTE (atici @ Apr 2 2006, 06:27 AM)There...   Apr 2 2006, 12:17
- - vinnie97   You know, I get the impression you've really g...   Apr 2 2006, 06:32
|- - atici   QUOTE (vinnie97 @ Apr 2 2006, 12:32 AM)1.) Yo...   Apr 2 2006, 06:43
- - vinnie97   PS. What you quoted was in regards to the POLL bei...   Apr 2 2006, 06:36
- - vinnie97   Apologies, I meant "seeking" instead of ...   Apr 2 2006, 06:53
- - ak   You know what's funny, people keep talking los...   Apr 2 2006, 19:51
|- - The Link   QUOTE (ak @ Apr 2 2006, 07:51 PM)I think Doom...   Apr 2 2006, 20:26
|- - guruboolez   QUOTE (ak @ Apr 2 2006, 07:51 PM)I think Doom...   Apr 2 2006, 21:07
- - hybridfan   QUOTE (Sebastian Mares @ Apr 1 2006, 12:43 PM...   Apr 2 2006, 20:19
|- - Sebastian Mares   QUOTE (hybridfan @ Apr 2 2006, 09:19 PM)maybe...   Apr 2 2006, 20:55
- - ak   Well, ok. Although recommended and best aren't...   Apr 2 2006, 22:49
|- - guruboolez   QUOTE (ak @ Apr 2 2006, 10:49 PM)Well, ok. Al...   Apr 2 2006, 23:38
- - satorippoi   Well, if you would let me, i will add some comment...   Apr 2 2006, 22:56
- - foxyshadis   The Doom9 ban isn't on discussion, it's on...   Apr 3 2006, 00:17
|- - rjamorim   QUOTE (foxyshadis @ Apr 2 2006, 08:17 PM)it...   Apr 3 2006, 00:32
|- - guruboolez   QUOTE (foxyshadis @ Apr 3 2006, 12:17 AM)It l...   Apr 3 2006, 00:40
- - vinnie97   QUOTE Personally, I love mpc, because it's a g...   Apr 3 2006, 00:35
- - Supacon   I've never had any interest in MPC, personally...   Apr 3 2006, 01:49
- - vinnie97   QUOTE some metal/punk on P2P networks is/was encod...   Apr 3 2006, 04:26
|- - Leto Atreides II   QUOTE (vinnie97 @ Apr 2 2006, 07:26 PM)QUOTE ...   Apr 3 2006, 07:32
|- - user   weird... April jokes ? I knew (and posted) during...   Apr 3 2006, 23:57
|- - rjamorim   QUOTE (user @ Apr 3 2006, 07:57 PM)Other form...   Apr 4 2006, 02:13
|- - kwanbis   QUOTE (user @ Apr 3 2006, 10:57 PM)Other form...   Apr 4 2006, 03:59
||- - skelly831   QUOTE (kwanbis @ Apr 3 2006, 06:59 PM)QUOTE (...   Apr 4 2006, 04:06
||- - kwanbis   QUOTE (skelly831 @ Apr 4 2006, 03:06 AM)Keep ...   Apr 4 2006, 04:15
||- - skelly831   QUOTE (kwanbis @ Apr 3 2006, 07:15 PM)QUOTE (...   Apr 4 2006, 04:52
|- - guruboolez   QUOTE (user @ Apr 3 2006, 11:57 PM)no (seriou...   Apr 4 2006, 09:40
- - Brink   QUOTE I've noticed this same phenomenon. It se...   Apr 3 2006, 07:32
|- - skelly831   QUOTE (Brink @ Apr 2 2006, 10:32 PM)...or may...   Apr 4 2006, 01:16
- - vinnie97   QUOTE Other formats are still struggling to reach ...   Apr 4 2006, 03:34
- - Madman2003   A while back i tried lame -V 2 and at on the few t...   Apr 4 2006, 09:58
- - Wombat   QUOTE (guruboolez @ Apr 4 2006, 09:40 AM)QUOT...   Apr 4 2006, 12:15
- - pepoluan   Sometimes I wonder... ... if a codec (name your f...   Apr 4 2006, 22:56
|- - StewartR   QUOTE (pepoluan @ Apr 4 2006, 10:56 PM) S...   Apr 10 2006, 13:50
|- - pepoluan   QUOTE (StewartR @ Apr 10 2006, 07:50 PM) ...   Apr 10 2006, 21:59
|- - user   No, extrapolation of those tests (not only of thos...   Apr 11 2006, 11:16
|- - rjamorim   QUOTE (user @ Apr 11 2006, 07:16 AM) No, ...   Apr 11 2006, 12:52
||- - user   QUOTE (rjamorim @ Apr 11 2006, 01:52 PM) ...   Apr 11 2006, 18:01
|||- - rjamorim   QUOTE (user @ Apr 11 2006, 02:01 PM) Than...   Apr 12 2006, 00:23
|||- - user   Dear friend, you have conducted tests as conductor...   Apr 12 2006, 10:12
||- - Garf   QUOTE (rjamorim @ Apr 11 2006, 01:52 PM) ...   Apr 12 2006, 12:11
|- - Garf   QUOTE (user @ Apr 11 2006, 12:16 PM) No, ...   Apr 12 2006, 12:58
|- - user   Thanks Garf for questioning, what rjamorim leads t...   Apr 12 2006, 13:47
|- - Garf   QUOTE (user @ Apr 12 2006, 02:47 PM) As a...   Apr 12 2006, 13:59
|- - kwanbis   QUOTE (Garf @ Apr 12 2006, 12:59 PM) *BUT...   Apr 12 2006, 14:24
|- - user   I do question, that transparency = 5.0 is sufficie...   Apr 12 2006, 15:19
- - vinnie97   That provides an extra layer of psychologic protec...   Apr 4 2006, 23:15
|- - pepoluan   QUOTE (vinnie97 @ Apr 5 2006, 05:15 AM)That p...   Apr 4 2006, 23:38
- - seanyseansean   The vast majority of my 45000+ track collection in...   Apr 4 2006, 23:22
- - vinnie97   You lost me at variable "Q." Seriousl...   Apr 5 2006, 04:50
|- - user   lol! when I wrote this at 4th of April, kwanbi...   Apr 10 2006, 12:14
|- - rjamorim   QUOTE (user @ Apr 10 2006, 08:14 AM) lol...   Apr 10 2006, 12:34
|- - kwanbis   QUOTE (user @ Apr 10 2006, 11:14 AM) when...   Apr 10 2006, 13:33
- - shadowking   It makes some sense, only that when V2 is clearly ...   Apr 10 2006, 14:13
- - m0rbidini   I'm not a statistics wizard but I don't th...   Apr 11 2006, 17:29
- - stephanV   Still, even the listening tests done rjamorim do n...   Apr 12 2006, 11:17
- - kwanbis   For me, its like a race, you compare lap times of ...   Apr 12 2006, 13:43
|- - Garf   QUOTE (kwanbis @ Apr 12 2006, 02:43 PM) A...   Apr 12 2006, 13:45
|- - kwanbis   QUOTE (Garf @ Apr 12 2006, 12:45 PM) I...   Apr 12 2006, 13:49
|- - user   QUOTE (kwanbis @ Apr 12 2006, 02:49 PM) Q...   Apr 12 2006, 14:02
- - m0rbidini   QUOTE (Garf)I'd like to see rjamorim's dat...   Apr 12 2006, 14:03
|- - Garf   QUOTE (m0rbidini @ Apr 12 2006, 03:03 PM)...   Apr 12 2006, 14:06
- - hybridfan   hmm funny how this thread is continuing, sorry for...   Apr 12 2006, 15:21
- - jazzymelody   What is really bad about MPC is that before 2 year...   Apr 12 2006, 15:31
|- - nawhead   QUOTE (jazzymelody @ Apr 12 2006, 10:31) ...   Sep 11 2007, 03:19
|- - pdq   QUOTE (nawhead @ Sep 10 2007, 22:19) Also...   Sep 11 2007, 03:36
|- - shadowking   QUOTE (nawhead @ Sep 11 2007, 12:19) QUOT...   Sep 11 2007, 04:17
|- - shadowking   QUOTE (nawhead @ Sep 11 2007, 12:19) peop...   Sep 11 2007, 10:45
- - xmixahlx   HA is development driven and musepack's psymod...   Sep 11 2007, 11:57
- - xmixahlx   lol... you signed up to say that?   Jun 9 2008, 17:50


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: 21st October 2014 - 07:35