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: MPC Quality: -standard or -xtreme? (Read 19108 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

MPC Quality: -standard or -xtreme?

I would like to know what everyone's experience with encoding MPC's with -standard or -xtreme, especially with rock music. I'm trying to decided which one I should use. I only have a 12 GB hard drive (it's a laptop and holds all of my programs & music). I more concered with how much space the music will take up and the quality (especially when I burn audio CD's, I want good quality).

Is there a big quality jump in -xtreme to warrent me encoding in that? Or is -standard all I really need?

Also, what is everyone's luck with reencoding MPC's into MP3's (yes yes, I know it is going to lose quality, I am thinking in the future if I get a portable MP3 player where quality doesn't matter as much).

What is everyone's thoughts?

- Chris

MPC Quality: -standard or -xtreme?

Reply #1 –
There is a quality increase in using -xtreme over -standard, but it really depends on the individual's hearing ability and the difficulty of the encoded files as to whether or not this will be audible.  Remember that Buschel has designed MPC so that -standard is transparent on 99.9999% of the signals out there for the vast majority of people, and I think he has achieved this goal.

So if you are still uncertain, listen for yourself and see if you can hear a difference.  That's what I'd recommend.

As for reencoding from MPC to MP3.. if you are planning on doing this, then I would encode with mpc -insane.  It overrides a few normal masking related issues which would lend itself better to reencoding with another psymodel.

MPC Quality: -standard or -xtreme?

Reply #2 –
With my headphones, MPC -standard is transparent to me on any sample I have ever thrown at it. But just to be on the safe side (maybe one day I'll get really good equipment, you never know) I use -xtreme. The avg. bitrate of ~200kbps is OK for me.

But, to answer your question: I personally wouldn't mind switching to -standard if I was forced to - the quality is still unbelievable good, and bitrates are also very acceptable (~175kbps).

CU

Dominic

MPC Quality: -standard or -xtreme?

Reply #3 –
I'd have to go along with both of the above. However, it does rather depend on the future in terms of the bitrates you think you would want to use in transcoding to MP3.

I would suggest that if you are looking to end up with 128kbps MP3s, then you may well get away with using -standard as the MPC source. If, on the other hand you plan to use one of Dibrom's current, or future, high quality presets for MP3 then you will certainly need to use -insane as the MPC source.

It all depends upon where you think you will be going.

john33

MPC Quality: -standard or -xtreme?

Reply #4 –
Personally I encode my music with -standard. It sounds perfect for me with both headphones and speakers.
I have also burned some audio cd's out of them and nobody has complained about quality.
But I don't have mp3 player and I'm not going to re-encode them to any other format. If I were doing that, I would probably choose higher bitrate, though I haven't tested the quality of transcoding.
And yes, it's good for rock too. 1/3 of my music is metal, 1/3 rock, 1/3 miscellaneous.

MPC Quality: -standard or -xtreme?

Reply #5 –
Thanks everyone for your responses.

I'm hoping that I get a 40 GB external USB hard drive for xmas from someone. If that is the case, I'll go with -xtreme with my rips. However, if I don't get the new external hard drive, then I will be forced to use either -standard or burn -xtreme files onto CD-R's. I hate switching CD-R's though to find songs, I like everything in one place . So in a week or two I will discover where I am going with this.

Thanks again.

MPC Quality: -standard or -xtreme?

Reply #6 –
Up until now I've been encoding MP3s but I'm thinking about switching to MPC to archive my CDs.  Lately I've been using the latest LAME alphas with Dibrom's mods and using --alt-preset standard.  Is MPC "standard" better than this?  If not, would "-xtreme" be better or would you recommend "-xtreme -nmt 10"?

Basically I just want to have files averaging around or under 200kbps that are pretty much guaranteed to be extremely high quality...

Thanks,

NickSD

MPC Quality: -standard or -xtreme?

Reply #7 –
Quote
Originally posted by NickSD
Up until now I've been encoding MP3s but I'm thinking about switching to MPC to archive my CDs.  Lately I've been using the latest LAME alphas with Dibrom's mods and using --alt-preset standard.  Is MPC "standard" better than this?


Yes.

Quote
If not, would "-xtreme" be better or would you recommend "-xtreme -nmt 10"?


-xtreme is fine.

Quote
Basically I just want to have files averaging around or under 200kbps that are pretty much guaranteed to be extremely high quality...


You can't really go wrong with mpc -xtreme.  mpc -standard should usually be transparent also, but since -xtreme will stay under 200kbps for the most part also, you may want to go with that.  It's up to you really.

MPC Quality: -standard or -xtreme?

Reply #8 –
Quote
Originally posted by Dibrom

You can't really go wrong with mpc -xtreme.  mpc -standard should usually be transparent also, but since -xtreme will stay under 200kbps for the most part also, you may want to go with that.  It's up to you really.


What potential gains will I see from using -xtreme?  Is it really worth the extra 25kbps or so?

MPC Quality: -standard or -xtreme?

Reply #9 –
Xtreme uses more sensitive hearing curve: ltq fil. It also uses somewhat less masking (higher quantization resolution).

It's up to the listener if it's worth it...
Juha Laaksonheimo

MPC Quality: -standard or -xtreme?

Reply #10 –
I look @ it this way: I don't want to have that "should I have" question nagging at me after getting even halfway through my CD collection so from my first CD I started off encoding @ the insane setting.  In your case, you gotta figure that down the road you'll probably/possibly have enough money to upgrade to a bigger harddrive anyhow so I'd go with the extreme setting.

MPC Quality: -standard or -xtreme?

Reply #11 –
If you think about it, filesize should be the least of our worries. At least if you, like me, are building an archive with the future in mind.

If the technological evolution continues at least somewhat like what we've experienced so far, you'll be lucky to find a 100 GB drive on the market in five years. And 100 GB is a lot of mpc's, even with -insane!

Just a thought.

/ Uosdwis

MPC Quality: -standard or -xtreme?

Reply #12 –
Quote
Originally posted by Uosdwis R. Dewoh
If you think about it, filesize should be the least of our worries. At least if you, like me, are building an archive with the future in mind.

it's true that i care much less about audio filesize now as opposed to three years ago when i had a 6 gb hd vs. my 60 gb one today, but i have to go back to something i read on a post in here recently: if filesize isn't an issue, why not go lossless? then all these questions about transcoding and transparency become true moot points.

even a seemingly insignificant 25 kbps decrease from -xtreme to -standard gives you ~13% or so extra space. that's an extra album per cd if backing up to cd-r, and several extra albums or any amount of multimedia/games/programs on a hard drive. in my (relatively uninformed) opinion, for normal playback and archiving on good stereo equipment, -standard is the best space/quality tradeoff (barely sacrificing any audible quality anyway).

and as far as that "should i have" question... i have dozens of albums and hundreds of songs that i encoded 4-5 years ago with old l3enc and xing mp3 encoders, back in the days before i learned how to hear mp3 artifacts... ouch. so a switch from that level of quality to mpc puts this -standard vs. -xtreme debate in some perspective for me

MPC Quality: -standard or -xtreme?

Reply #13 –
Well, I look @ it in terms of anality and size.  Just how anal do you want to get about this stuff and how small do you need your files to be? 

I've been down the road with Lame/MP3 for over a year, always getting the latest releases and trying different commandline options. It drove me nuts and I got tired of always wishing I could re-encode my collection with the latest, greatest Lame version.  Then I read a post by Dilbrom that said he used MPC.  I figured, if this guy's NOT using his own Lame command-line options that people are applauding, there's something to that.  Well, with MPC the quality from when I first started encoding about 6 months ago compared to now isn't noticeable to me, other than slightly bigger file sizes nowadays.  So, the quality's been that good to me that I'm not freaking out about encoding my 900+ cd collection.  In fact, I'm almost done and I've no regrets.

MPC Quality: -standard or -xtreme?

Reply #14 –
I use xtreem for the most part but there are times when I use standard. Usually on older stuff.
To me, clowns aren\'t funny. In fact, they\'re kinda scary. I\'ve wondered where this started and I think it goes back to the time I went to the circus and a clown killed my dad. -- Jack Handy

MPC Quality: -standard or -xtreme?

Reply #15 –
I use standard because for me it is enough. Although I must say I'm getting sceptical these days since so many people seem to favor xtreme. Since I'm getting a new hdd (120gb, oh yesss!) pretty soon, raising the bitrate won't hurt.

But to all of those, who are undecicisive wether to use standard or something else: take a look at the radio preset. Yes, it's not perfect but still pretty impressive if you ask me. So if radio is transparent to you then you can use standard and be on the safe side.

I think people often mistake the "mpc standard is transparent" for "128k mp3 is transparent" so they think they have to use something better. I also understand that there are indeed people who require (much) more than mpc standard.

MPC Quality: -standard or -xtreme?

Reply #16 –
I've been sticking with --xtreme --nmt 16 --tmn 32. Average bitrates are regularly above 250kbps, occasionally over 300kbps. Do I need it? Not for first-generation decoding. But I have the diskspace, the pleasure of knowing in the back of my mind that artifacts are almost eliminated, and I like how much the bitrate display bounces around in WinAMP. I don't know about you all, but watching that bitrate display is hypnotic...I'll get all excited if it breaks 400kbps on a hard music segment. "Ooooh, look. A 400kbps frame. MP3 can't do that!"

MPC Quality: -standard or -xtreme?

Reply #17 –
>>and I like how much the bitrate display bounces around in WinAMP. I don't know about you all, but watching that bitrate display is hypnotic...I'll get all excited if it breaks 400kbps on a hard music segment. "Ooooh, look. A 400kbps frame. MP3 can't do that!<<

Hmm..
I think some people are so obsessed with this bitrate stuff and geeky encoder switches, they forget to ENJOY their music.

I enjoy my old 128k Bladeenc mp3s because I listen to the music, not to the encoder quality.

I feel sorry for your wasted time looking at that display, mithrandir

In 20 years, when I will be around 45, I will give a **** whether my old Metallica album is 160k or 320k. I will probably listen to it once and put it back again.

MPC Quality: -standard or -xtreme?

Reply #18 –
My opinion:

in the very few clips where I ever heard MPC fail, they failed as much with -xtreme as they did with -standard.

If the psymodel is failing, most likely it won't allocate enough enough bits with xtreme either.

So, I doubt there is much sense in using -xtreme. It's very arguable it will actually give higher quality, and it's quite a bit larger.

--
GCP

MPC Quality: -standard or -xtreme?

Reply #19 –
Quote
Originally posted by Garf
in the very few clips where I ever heard MPC fail, they failed as much with -xtreme as they did with -standard.

If the psymodel is failing, most likely it won't allocate enough enough bits with xtreme either.

that's a good point... i remember a few years ago trying to encode a particularly difficult placebo song in vqf format at 80 kbps (space was my biggest concern, as i was serving it from a website to hundreds of people). the beginning of the song had terrible artifacts, much worse than any other song i ever encoded, so i bumped up the bitrate to 96. still terrible, since the problem wasn't the bitrate but the encoding format. 128 kbps would have likely had the same problem too. with many mp3 formats as well i can go as high as i want on the bitrate and still have problems.

if those who encode at standard do so "just in case" they notice the compression later in their lives, it probably is just as likely that they would begin to hear it with xtreme too. the only legitimate reason for using anything more than standard in my opinion is if you're going to encode the audio again in a different format and you want to keep it as close to the source as possible.

MPC Quality: -standard or -xtreme?

Reply #20 –
Quote
Originally posted by sony666
I enjoy my old 128k Bladeenc mp3s because I listen to the music, not to the encoder quality.

You can hear music underneath all those artifacts?  Now *that's* a set of 'golden ears'!

MPC Quality: -standard or -xtreme?

Reply #21 –
Quote
I enjoy my old 128k Bladeenc mp3s because I listen to the music, not to the encoder quality.


By now I'm sure most people here, including me, have just gotten used to high quality sounding encoded audio. For me it's totally distracting to listen to any music if it sounds like it's been run through a flanger or sounds like it's underwater. By just for the fun of it I'm going to encode some stuff to Blade 128, maybe it really isn't as bad as I think it would be.

MPC Quality: -standard or -xtreme?

Reply #22 –
Quote
Originally posted by ChS


By now I'm sure most people here, including me, have just gotten used to high quality sounding encoded audio. For me it's totally distracting to listen to any music if it sounds like it's been run through a flanger or sounds like it's underwater. By just for the fun of it I'm going to encode some stuff to Blade 128, maybe it really isn't as bad as I think it would be.


It was live stuff, and accoustic instrumentation that really pushed me to MPC from MP3.  Clapping and high-frequencies had that digital waterfall noise.  One thing I also noticed after switching is that my 128Kbps MP3's often seemed to drop some of the low frequencies which became aparent on my stereo that hits 20Hz very solidly.

However, For the majority of stuff out there, MP3 at 196Kbps sounds good enough for the people not sitting right in front of a good set of speakers or doing quality tests through headphones.

MPC Quality: -standard or -xtreme?

Reply #23 –
Quote
Originally posted by Garf
in the very few clips where I ever heard MPC fail, they failed as much with -xtreme as they did with -standard.

Could someone please verify this? I think it would be very interesting. On one hand it is bad news, that no matter what, you can't get rid of that artifact, but on the other it would mean, you're probably just fine with standard. The only sample I recall at the moment where mpc  produced an artifact was the Madonna - Frozen sample (in both standard and extreme). I would truly like to see a collection of mpc problem samples somewhere.

MPC Quality: -standard or -xtreme?

Reply #24 –
Quote
Originally posted by Gecko

Could someone please verify this? I think it would be very interesting. On one hand it is bad news, that no matter what, you can't get rid of that artifact, but on the other it would mean, you're probably just fine with standard. The only sample I recall at the moment where mpc  produced an artifact was the Madonna - Frozen sample (in both standard and extreme). I would truly like to see a collection of mpc problem samples somewhere.


Yes, I'd also like to see this verified.  If it's true, I'll stop using xtreme and just use standard to save space.