Is MPC better than mp3? Options

[Grand Dizzy]

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?

[pepoluan]

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?

[StewartR]

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?

[pepoluan]

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 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...

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.

[user]

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.

[rjamorim]

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.

It is perfectly possible, and has been done several times before. The anchor indeed helps, but if any, my tests show that rankings have been consistent to quality across tests no matter if you use an anchor as reference or not.

You are just nitpicking here. If you want to seriously nitpick, you could determine that tests could only be compared ("extrapolated") if you used at least one encoder in common, the same listeners, the same samples, and the same conditions. That's not only unfeasible, that is impossible, as your hearing isn't perfectly the same day after day, and unmeasurable factors like mood and tiredness play a very important role in your testing habilities.

We are trying to compromise here for the sake of information.

This post has been edited by rjamorim: Apr 11 2006, 12:53

[Garf]

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.

It is perfectly possible, and has been done several times before. The anchor indeed helps, but if any, my tests show that rankings have been consistent to quality across tests no matter if you use an anchor as reference or not.

You are just nitpicking here. If you want to seriously nitpick, you could determine that tests could only be compared ("extrapolated") if you used at least one encoder in common, the same listeners, the same samples, and the same conditions. That's not only unfeasible, that is impossible, as your hearing isn't perfectly the same day after day, and unmeasurable factors like mood and tiredness play a very important role in your testing habilities.

We are trying to compromise here for the sake of information.

Well, you've lost me there. Where have your tests shown this? (That's a request for information, not a rhetorical remark)

Extrapolating results between two tests with any common anchor looks pretty hazy to me, and it's not something I'd accept as solid in any way without some strong indication that in the given circumstances it's a valid compromise to make.