User opions wanted, Wavpack vs Ogg vs MPC (crippled) Options

[Progenator]

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.

[gameplaya15143]

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

[Martel]

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.
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

[vinnie97]

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.
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. 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 ).

This post has been edited by vinnie97: Feb 28 2006, 17:40

[Martel]

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.   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 ).

Just how much music (hours) do you want to carry around? Why not use even lower bitrates, if the quality doesn't bother you at all? You could then have ALL your music in your 4G player, wouldn't it be great?

Well, seriously... I was talking about HDD (and i meant true HDD, not mini-drive) DAPs. I just criticised generalizing that 80kbps is good for anybody/any DAP. I apologize if i offended you or anybody else, i ain't evil (though my avatar might seem so...).

edit: must learn how to edit quotes properly...

This post has been edited by Martel: Mar 2 2006, 10:30