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: MPEG1 Layer II vs Layer III (Read 12407 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

MPEG1 Layer II vs Layer III

Simple question; is it MPEG1 Layer II better than Layer III (MP3)?

MPEG1 Layer II vs Layer III

Reply #1 –
Simple answer: Yes

MP3 has many new (it was new then) features so that it sounds better...
---

MPEG1 Layer II vs Layer III

Reply #2 –
Quote
Simple answer: Yes

MP3 has many new (it was new then) features so that it sounds better...
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=227275"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


You did not read the question carefully.

The simple answer is:
no.

mp3 is usually more effective compared to mp2 because of
- higher spectral resolution
- entropy coding of MDCT samples
- less scalefactor data overhead
- advanced joint-stereo coding (MP2 does not support M/S stereo)

but MP2 has a lower encode/decode delay and might handle transients better than mp3 at high bitrates (e.g. 384 kbps for mp2 compared to 320 kbps for mp3 / less pre-echo because of the high temporal resolution). In fact, MusePack is a more advaned version of MP2 with smart scalefactor-, allocation-, subband-samples-coding and also mid/side stereo.


Sebi

MPEG1 Layer II vs Layer III

Reply #3 –
Again, layer II is not better, it is different 
In simple words, Layer III is more complex, so posibility to get an error rises.
But it operates at much lesser bitrates than layer II.
Quote
In fact, MusePack is a more advaned version of MP2

Yes. I always wondering what would happen if ISO rework layer II instead of advancing to layer III...

MPEG1 Layer II vs Layer III

Reply #4 –
From what i hear, mp2 is better than mp3 at higher bitrates

MPEG1 Layer II vs Layer III

Reply #5 –
Yeah, but considering some people claim they can clearly hear compression at 320kbps...when you start getting much bigger than that it's probably worth it to just use lossless at around 700kbps.

MPEG1 Layer II vs Layer III

Reply #6 –
Quote
Quote
Simple answer: Yes

MP3 has many new (it was new then) features so that it sounds better...
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=227275"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


You did not read the question carefully.

[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=227285"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]



Sorry, I meant for lower bitrates, I think the meaning of lossy codecs is to sound good enough to listen too, while the compression is very high. As loophole said you can otherwise go for the lossless codecs, or simply go for WAV...
---

MPEG1 Layer II vs Layer III

Reply #7 –
Quote
Yeah, but considering some people claim they can clearly hear compression at 320kbps...when you start getting much bigger than that it's probably worth it to just use lossless at around 700kbps.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=227588"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

actually lossless is more around the 900-1100 range for me.

MPEG1 Layer II vs Layer III

Reply #8 –
Totally depends on the source material.
"You can fight without ever winning, but never win without a fight."  Neil Peart  'Resist'

MPEG1 Layer II vs Layer III

Reply #9 –
yeah, i know, my favourite type of music just happens to be harder to compress than others

MPEG1 Layer II vs Layer III

Reply #10 –
Quote
Again, layer II is not better, it is different  
In simple words, Layer III is more complex, so posibility to get an error rises.
But it operates at much lesser bitrates than layer II.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=227307"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


heheh
it's safer to say "it's different" than "it's better/worse". I agree.
But MP2 does not exploit interchannel redundancies (losslessly),  the probability distribution of the subband samples nor correlations between the subband samples (within the same band) which are present in case of tonal parts ... whereas MP3 does via M/S matrixing, Huffman-Coding, decorrelating MDCT transform.
Also, the scalefactor overhead in MP2 is greater than in MP3.

So, IMHO it makes sense to say: MP3 is usually more effective than MP2.

I rest my case.

bye,
Sebi

MPEG1 Layer II vs Layer III

Reply #11 –
Where will that place mpc then, i seem to recall it`s mpeg2,5.
I assume everyone will agree on that mpc is lot more effective then mp3.

MPEG1 Layer II vs Layer III

Reply #12 –
Quote
I assume everyone will agree on that mpc is lot more effective then mp3.

yes, at medium to higher bitrates, what i wonder is if a psymodel similar to that of mpc's could be made for mp3, making it much better than it is now.

MPEG1 Layer II vs Layer III

Reply #13 –
Quote
Where will that place mpc then, i seem to recall it`s mpeg2,5.

MPEG 2.5 is an unapprooved by ISO extension for layer III, which extends format (mpeg 2 line of it) with additional bitrates (and may be frequences, can't remeber)
MPC is layer II encoder with a lot of advanced features incorporated.

Quote
what i wonder is if a psymodel similar to that of mpc's could be made for mp3, making it much better than it is now.

Psymodel is not an issue. MPC as layer II is a subband encoder, that's why it performs better on high bitrates.
Anyway, aac with better (compared to mp3) time resolution should be good replacement for any codec now... Need to wait until it becames mature enough.

MPEG1 Layer II vs Layer III

Reply #14 –
Quote
Quote
Where will that place mpc then, i seem to recall it`s mpeg2,5.

MPEG 2.5 is an unapprooved by ISO extension for layer III, which extends format (mpeg 2 line of it) with additional bitrates (and may be frequences, can't remeber)
mpeg 2.5 adds 11khz, and 8khz sampling

MPEG1 Layer II vs Layer III

Reply #15 –
Quote
what i wonder is if a psymodel similar to that of mpc's could be made for mp3, making it much better than it is now.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=227844"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Am far from any coder/developer, but it have been quite informative to
hear Gabriel`s answer to that. If this is something that can be implemented,
maybe a testing version of the lame, with switchable psymodels
would be the next thing. That would certainly improve mp3.

MPEG1 Layer II vs Layer III

Reply #16 –
Offtopic posts moved here.
Microsoft Windows: We can't script here, this is bat country.

MPEG1 Layer II vs Layer III

Reply #17 –
Tnx guys for the detailed answers... but one thing is still not clear to me...
Many radio stations still prefer MPEG1 layer II. Is it maybe because most of their archives have already been recorded in that format or is it some kind of misguided delusion of ignorant dinosaurs...? 

MPEG1 Layer II vs Layer III

Reply #18 –
Quote
Many radio stations still prefer MPEG1 layer II

Compatibility with their past archives.