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: Which is likelier transparent? LAME V2/MPC std./lossyWAV extraportable (Read 4256 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Which is likelier transparent? LAME V2/MPC std./lossyWAV extraportable

Hi,

I probably won't be able to abx anyway, but from a technical point of view: which of the three codecs (and corresponding settings) would likely produce the least noticeable artefacts?

So far I have used MPC standard, since it gave me the smallest file size.

What's your opinion?

Cheers
johnb

-----

Sorry, just noticed that the Topic was truncated. It should have said lame V2, mpc standard, Lossywav extraportable

Which is likelier transparent? LAME V2/MPC std./lossyWAV extraportable

Reply #1 –
Quote
extraportable lowest quality output, not fully transparent.


Lame V2 and MPC standard are generally considered transparent. The most recent (2005) listening test I found, comparing both, is this: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=36465 performed by a single listener with good ears: guruboolez on a single genre: classical. In this particular test both produce similar (if not statistically identical) but non-transparent quality.

AFAIK there is no recent test which provides a general answer to your question (many listeners, diverse sample set), in part because conclusive results are not expected.