IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
User opions wanted, Wavpack vs Ogg vs MPC (crippled)
Progenator
post Feb 13 2006, 16:56
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 4
Joined: 13-February 06
Member No.: 27729



Hi,
I recently installed Rockbox firmware on my Iriver I-hp 120, and quite stoked about it, its great.
I am befuddled though, as to which lossy format to use. I know MPC is supposed to be the best at 128kbps and up, but the MPC plays but does not seek with it. I have seen posts here (at hydrgogen audio) with people saying MPC at insane may as well be considered lossless for listening purposes. Is it that good? If it is, I would go without the seeking for music.
Quality AND size are my considerations. I tend to encode my stuff at 160-220 weighing both factors. For my car steareo I used lame at 320. I can definately notice the difference between an ogg and lame at the same bitrates (Radiohead - Karma Police at 160) .

I also don't know how a lossy wavpack (which is well supported on the rockbox) compares to OGG or MPC. I'd assume in quality: 1. MPC 2. OGG 3.Wavpack, but thats just an assumption.

Would like some opinions on this and maybe an all inclusive lossy format test.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
guruboolez
post Feb 13 2006, 17:16
Post #2





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 3474
Joined: 7-November 01
From: Strasbourg (France)
Member No.: 420



Nobody has posted any listening test at very high bitrate (> 230 kbps). Requesting opinions would therefore look like a call to massive TOS#8 violation and to pure zealotry.

For MPC superiority at high bitrate, you should compare this test and this one. I wouldn't consider the old Musepack superiority as valid anymore without any modern and complete checkup.

Last but not least, other members' opinions won't help you. What matters isn't what member no.xxx or member no.yyy have experienced (or rather have in mind without performing any test) but what matters is what you can hear. If you're happy with one format at a given bitrate, you shoudn't base any change on someone else feelings.
Cheers smile.gif

This post has been edited by guruboolez: Feb 13 2006, 17:18
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Garf
post Feb 13 2006, 17:19
Post #3


Server Admin


Group: Admin
Posts: 4853
Joined: 24-September 01
Member No.: 13



Your information is outdated.

http://www.maresweb.de/listening-tests/mf-128-1/results.htm (new)
http://www.rjamorim.com/test/multiformat128/results.html (older)

There seems to be no indication that Musepack is the best at 128kbps. Also, the performance of the encoders in the latest test at 128kbps was so good it seems hard to justify much larger bitrates. You're certainly unlikely to be able to hear the difference during casual listening (and your original claim is unlikely to be accepted here without more evidence).

This post has been edited by Garf: Feb 13 2006, 17:25
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Progenator
post Feb 13 2006, 18:16
Post #4





Group: Members
Posts: 4
Joined: 13-February 06
Member No.: 27729



Your right about my original claim. Listening again I can't hear any difference, I must have been picking on a certain codec that day. I originally thought that the ogg had a more crystal-sharper sound, thats the way I thought of it. Now that I rethink it, the words 'crystal' and 'sharp' sound are solid historical buzz words for advertsing audio products.

.: I was looking for something and found it, how very unscientific. Then again I am not a scientist, or a salesperson.

I wonder which codec has the best image...

Sorry for being misleading.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
bryant
post Feb 13 2006, 18:24
Post #5


WavPack Developer


Group: Developer (Donating)
Posts: 1287
Joined: 3-January 02
From: San Francisco CA
Member No.: 900



QUOTE (Progenator @ Feb 13 2006, 07:56 AM)
I also don't know how a lossy wavpack (which is well supported on the rockbox) compares to OGG or MPC. I'd assume in quality: 1. MPC 2. OGG 3.Wavpack, but thats just an assumption.
*

WavPack really doesn't make any sense as a stand-alone lossy codec, except maybe at very high bitrates (>320 kbps) or when you are forced to transcode to or from another lossy format.

However, the hybrid mode is handy for RockBox because you can keep the correction files on your PC for lossless and just copy the lossy versions to your portable.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
salpro
post Feb 17 2006, 22:14
Post #6





Group: Members
Posts: 59
Joined: 23-June 02
Member No.: 2380



mpc main advantage is speed of encoding and decoding in my humble "opinion"
if this is incorrect please delete my post without notification mr moderator
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
guruboolez
post Feb 17 2006, 22:58
Post #7





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 3474
Joined: 7-November 01
From: Strasbourg (France)
Member No.: 420



MPC has lost most of early advantages as superior quality and especially superior encoding speed. Vorbis is nowadays much faster, and WavPack outperforms them both:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....ndpost&p=313747

For decoding speed, Rockbox developers got a lot of troubles to ensure real-time MPC decoding. MPC is indeed very fast, but on PC only (it's also slow on MacOS IIRC). Not on Rockbox.

This post has been edited by guruboolez: Feb 17 2006, 23:07
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
jl47
post Feb 26 2006, 13:58
Post #8





Group: Members
Posts: 4
Joined: 20-January 06
Member No.: 27242



Hi,

I agree, mpc doesn't hold any quality over ogg. At high bitrates, it isn't the bitrate that counts so much as the way the encoder stores the information/programming. There may be artifacts in mp3 at 320 that aren't present in mpc or ogg at 96 or 128. So just giving more bitrate encoding space doesn't necessarily guarantee any better quality if the program encoding has flaws that produce artifacts at any bitrate. An analogy would be a racecar that you want to perform better. Just putting on a larger gastank and tuneup won't make it much faster/perform any better if the engine isn't as efficient as the next car with a smaller/better designed engine.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Yaztromo
post Feb 26 2006, 16:25
Post #9





Group: Members
Posts: 236
Joined: 28-July 03
From: England, UK
Member No.: 8031



Go with OGG.

MPC is outdated and you can't seek. Quality is no better than OGG.

MP3 quality not on par with OGG.

Wavpack file sizes are too big at high quality levels.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
vinnie97
post Feb 26 2006, 18:13
Post #10





Group: Members
Posts: 472
Joined: 6-March 03
Member No.: 5360



good to see these supposed MPC superiority claims getting properly dispelled. wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
senab
post Feb 26 2006, 20:23
Post #11





Group: Members
Posts: 247
Joined: 4-August 05
From: Birmingham, UK
Member No.: 23690



The thing to think about is what you want, and how it sounds to you...

I personally use Vorbis for the fact it's natively gapless and offers hi-quality encoding.


--------------------
::.. www.senab.co.uk
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
tman
post Feb 26 2006, 21:16
Post #12





Group: Members
Posts: 55
Joined: 23-January 06
Member No.: 27290



I'm new to all this, but the thing keeping me away from OGG right now is that I am planning on getting a COWON X5L and on that player OGG has the LARGEST gaps of all supported formats, which seems to defeat one of the big advantages of OGG. Somone posted samples of a seamless track transition for all formats. MP3 gap was .08 sec, OGG was .5 sec. mad.gif (when are the new SIGMATEL based players coming out????)
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
bubka
post Feb 26 2006, 21:46
Post #13





Group: Members
Posts: 239
Joined: 21-July 02
Member No.: 2692



let's get into the battery life debate biggrin.gif


--------------------
Chaintech AV-710
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
user
post Feb 27 2006, 17:15
Post #14





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



QUOTE (Yaztromo @ Feb 26 2006, 04:25 PM)
Go with OGG.

MPC is outdated and you can't seek.  Quality is no better than OGG.

MP3 quality not on par with OGG.

Wavpack file sizes are too big at high quality levels.
*


This post of Yaztromo shows signs of ogg zealotry. Neither is MPC outdated (he didnīt tell in which aspects), nor provides he listening tests of comparisons at some bitrate. These failures he made in favour of ogg hassling against mpc & mp3(Lame).
I recommend him reading the 128k tests, the old one containing mpc and showing, that MPC is easily on par with ogg, even at that low bitrate,
and the new one, where new Lame shows, that mp3-lame is quite on par with eg. ogg.

The sentence about wavpacks sizes doesn't make any sense. You need to specify q-level and bitrates, and then compare...

As bryant pointed out, as PC-HiFi/portable solution, wavpack hybrid makes sense.
As well MPC as PC-HiFi/portable solution makes also sense, imo.
Whereas Ogg and mp3 can be considered more to the portable usage.


--------------------
www.High-Quality.ch.vu -- High Quality Audio Archiving Tutorials
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Yaztromo
post Feb 27 2006, 17:41
Post #15





Group: Members
Posts: 236
Joined: 28-July 03
From: England, UK
Member No.: 8031



QUOTE (user @ Feb 27 2006, 04:15 PM)
This post of Yaztromo shows signs of ogg zealotry.


OGG isn't my format of choice, but I do think it should be the OP's format of choice.

QUOTE
Neither is MPC outdated (he didnīt tell in which aspects),


It hasn't been actively developed for ages (except some bug fix updates. Although I agree this is not so important.

QUOTE
nor provides he listening tests of comparisons at some bitrate. These failures he made in favour of ogg hassling against mpc & mp3(Lame).


I have not claimed OGG superiority in terms of audio quality at X bitrate over MPC. Please reread my post.

QUOTE
I recommend him reading the 128k tests, the old one containing mpc and showing, that MPC is easily on par with ogg, even at that low bitrate,
and the new one, where new Lame shows, that mp3-lame is quite on par with eg. ogg.


I understand the OP wants transparency at the smallest file size. Why would he be interested in 128k tests? I think we're talking about higher bitrates.

QUOTE
The sentence about wavpacks sizes doesn't make any sense. You need to specify q-level and bitrates, and then compare...


I would guess that for most people OGG is transparent (except for killer samples of course) around Q5 to 6 onwards. Wavpack cannot compete at this bitrate. It needs considerably more bits to achieve transparency (256k upwards).

And since the OP is interested in both size and quality, there really is no point in the larger file sizes of Wavpack when OGG can give him transparency at a lower bit rate.

QUOTE
Whereas Ogg and mp3 can be considered more to the portable usage.


What?!...What kind of crazy statement is this? OGG and MP3 can be considered perfect for Hi-Fi usage. Hell even WMA can provided the bit rates high enough.


Edit: Fixed quotes not working.

Edit 2:
Also your post suggests MPC is superior in terms of audio quality over OGG. Please see Guru's high bitrate tests,

This post has been edited by Yaztromo: Feb 27 2006, 17:46
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
gameplaya15143
post Feb 28 2006, 03:54
Post #16





Group: Members
Posts: 484
Joined: 8-January 06
From: Earth
Member No.: 26978



Ogg Vorbis
see the 80kbps listening test if you think otherwise (i am assuming lower bitrates like 80kbps are more desirable for a portable)
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....96&#entry312296


--------------------
Vorbis-q0-lowpass99
lame3.93.1-q5-V9-k-nspsytune
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
saratoga
post Feb 28 2006, 04:04
Post #17





Group: Members
Posts: 4715
Joined: 2-September 02
Member No.: 3264



QUOTE
I have not claimed OGG superiority in terms of audio quality at X bitrate over MPC. Please reread my post.


No, you made baseless (and meaninglessly vague IMO) claims about the quality of vorbis against MP3.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Yaztromo
post Feb 28 2006, 10:27
Post #18





Group: Members
Posts: 236
Joined: 28-July 03
From: England, UK
Member No.: 8031



QUOTE (Mike Giacomelli @ Feb 28 2006, 03:04 AM)
QUOTE
I have not claimed OGG superiority in terms of audio quality at X bitrate over MPC. Please reread my post.


No, you made baseless (and meaninglessly vague IMO) claims about the quality of vorbis against MP3.
*



http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....howtopic=36465#

At high bitrates OGG superiority over MP3 far from baseless.

EDIT:

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=35438

And at low bitrates too.

This post has been edited by Yaztromo: Feb 28 2006, 10:33
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Martel
post Feb 28 2006, 10:38
Post #19





Group: Members
Posts: 534
Joined: 31-May 04
From: Czech Rep.
Member No.: 14430



QUOTE (gameplaya15143 @ Feb 27 2006, 06:54 PM)
Ogg Vorbis
see the 80kbps listening test if you think otherwise (i am assuming lower bitrates like 80kbps are more desirable for a portable)
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....96&#entry312296
*


If you're listening with something other than ears, perhaps. biggrin.gif
If you're using a 4-euro pair of headphones, even better.
If you're using a HDD portable without the two previously mentioned specialities, NEVER!!!

edit: I mocked the 80kbps desirability for portables...

This post has been edited by Martel: Feb 28 2006, 10:45


--------------------
IE4 Rockbox Clip+ AAC@192; HD 668B/HD 518 Xonar DX FB2k FLAC;
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
guruboolez
post Feb 28 2006, 10:40
Post #20





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 3474
Joined: 7-November 01
From: Strasbourg (France)
Member No.: 420



QUOTE (Yaztromo @ Feb 28 2006, 10:27 AM)

For low bitrate comparison between MPC and Vorbis, use rather this:


http://forum.hardware.fr/hardwarefr/VideoS...jet-84950-1.htm
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
vinnie97
post Feb 28 2006, 16:25
Post #21





Group: Members
Posts: 472
Joined: 6-March 03
Member No.: 5360



QUOTE (Martel @ Feb 28 2006, 01:38 AM)
QUOTE (gameplaya15143 @ Feb 27 2006, 06:54 PM)
Ogg Vorbis
see the 80kbps listening test if you think otherwise (i am assuming lower bitrates like 80kbps are more desirable for a portable)
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....96&#entry312296
*


If you're listening with something other than ears, perhaps. biggrin.gif
If you're using a 4-euro pair of headphones, even better.
If you're using a HDD portable without the two previously mentioned specialities, NEVER!!!

edit: I mocked the 80kbps desirability for portables...
*


Not all of us have your golden ears and whether you want to face the fact that Ogg in its latest beta can churn out some remarkingly good-sounding 80 kbps files or not is not the OP's concern. wink.gif And this is especially true for those who live active lifestyles where sound quality has even greater potential of being disrupted by environmental sounds. This makes 80 kbps Oggs a sweet spot for flash players and the sole reason I purchased a Nano 4GB (once it was announced that Rockbox was functional wink.gif).

This post has been edited by vinnie97: Feb 28 2006, 17:40
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
xmixahlx
post Feb 28 2006, 17:29
Post #22





Group: Members
Posts: 1394
Joined: 20-December 01
From: seattle
Member No.: 693



why would you seek through a song?

i don't get it...

honestly, i think your options are: lame, vorbis, musepack

use lame if you want maximum compatibility (software/hardware playback)

if you go too low in bitrate (<128) , then i would suggest vorbis.

if you aren't then i would suggest musepack.

the notion that because musepack hasn't been developed in the quality realm excludes it from usage is ridiculous...

...and using the rockbox firmware, you might as well take advantage of some great (rare) features smile.gif


later


--------------------
RareWares/Debian :: http://www.rarewares.org/debian.html
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
senab
post Feb 28 2006, 18:00
Post #23





Group: Members
Posts: 247
Joined: 4-August 05
From: Birmingham, UK
Member No.: 23690



QUOTE (xmixahlx @ Feb 28 2006, 04:29 PM)
...and using the rockbox firmware, you might as well take advantage of some great (rare) features smile.gif
*


Just because a feature is rare, doesn't mean it is the best option. Tbh, the only way for the OP to choose is to encode a couple of tracks in various formats, and test them on the Rockbox. smile.gif


--------------------
::.. www.senab.co.uk
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
xmixahlx
post Mar 1 2006, 02:50
Post #24





Group: Members
Posts: 1394
Joined: 20-December 01
From: seattle
Member No.: 693



QUOTE (senab @ Feb 28 2006, 10:00 AM)
QUOTE (xmixahlx @ Feb 28 2006, 04:29 PM)
...and using the rockbox firmware, you might as well take advantage of some great (rare) features smile.gif
*


Just because a feature is rare, doesn't mean it is the best option. Tbh, the only way for the OP to choose is to encode a couple of tracks in various formats, and test them on the Rockbox. smile.gif
*


SORRY! MP3 IT IS!

i'm glad you were able to increase your post count a bit.

also, you must not have noticed my smiley - indicating a tongue-in-cheek comment.

if i was being serious i would not have included the previous 5 statements.


later


--------------------
RareWares/Debian :: http://www.rarewares.org/debian.html
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Yaztromo
post Mar 1 2006, 10:20
Post #25





Group: Members
Posts: 236
Joined: 28-July 03
From: England, UK
Member No.: 8031



QUOTE (xmixahlx @ Mar 1 2006, 01:50 AM)
also, you must not have noticed my smiley - indicating a tongue-in-cheek comment.

*


More appropriate would have been tongue.gif or wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
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: 17th April 2014 - 11:05