Moving entire FLAC collection to MPC, Will I have any regrets? |
  |
Moving entire FLAC collection to MPC, Will I have any regrets? |
 Sep 14 2007, 18:31
Post
#1
|
|
|
Group: Banned Posts: 735 Joined: 19-March 06 Member No.: 28599  |
After ABX'ing a couple of samples in MP3 320kbps, I have come to the conclusion where MP3 is useless - some artifacts are really there. I know that MPC has got not much hardware support (if any) but let's suppose I buy a RockBox supported iPod, then it's a start isn't it?
Since the FLAC's are huge and would take very much space to store them (about 50 DVD-Rs) it's convenient to convert them to MPC -q7. Even though like the word "BrainDead" - is there any reason to use q8? |
 |
 
|
|
Sep 14 2007, 18:47
Post
#2
|
|
 Group: Members Posts: 487 Joined: 5-August 02 From: Manila Member No.: 2939 |
dude, if you already have the flacs, i suggest you keep them and use a format natively supported by an ipod (nero or itunes aac).
you'll have regrets in the future when you have DAP not supported by rockbox. and if you're really dead set on a rockboxed ipod, why not vorbis? |
|
|
|
|
Sep 14 2007, 18:53
Post
#3
|
|
 lossyWAV Developer Group: Developer Posts: 1721 Joined: 11-April 07 From: Wherever here is Member No.: 42400 |
The lossyWAV method implemented by 2Bdecided and which Halb27 and I coded in Delphi gives about 33% reduction in FLAC size at quality setting -3 - which I find acceptable on DAP / headphones. See lossyFLAC thread in uploads for alpha v0.1.0.
This post has been edited by Nick.C: Sep 14 2007, 18:54 -------------------- lossyWAV -q X -i | FLAC -8 ~= 295kbps
SGS III (Rooted) + 64GB |
|
|
|
|
Sep 14 2007, 19:02
Post
#4
|
|
|
Group: Banned Posts: 735 Joined: 19-March 06 Member No.: 28599 |
you guys don't get it...
lossless is two much... at least for now every lossy codec has its pros and cons. the only contrary about MPC is hardware support, which I remember saying "buying a well-known rockbox supported ipod". but guess what I can even connect the laptop to the stereo... I don't see myself using Vorbis/AAC/MP3 anymore (too many issues) This post has been edited by Bourne: Sep 14 2007, 19:08 |
|
|
|
|
Sep 14 2007, 19:06
Post
#5
|
|
 Group: Members Posts: 1494 Joined: 31-January 04 Member No.: 11664 |
QUOTE (Bourne @ Sep 15 2007, 03:31)  After ABX'ing a couple of samples in MP3 320kbps, I have come to the conclusion where MP3 is useless - some artifacts are really there. I know that MPC has got not much hardware support (if any) but let's suppose I buy a RockBox supported iPod, then it's a start isn't it? Since the FLAC's are huge and would take very much space to store them (about 50 DVD-Rs) it's convenient to convert them to MPC -q7. Even though like the word "BrainDead" - is there any reason to use q8? I suppose now you could rockbox something or get a Cowon to play mpc. I wouldn't go past q6..max 7 |
|
|
|
|
Sep 14 2007, 19:08
Post
#6
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 487 Joined: 5-August 02 From: Manila Member No.: 2939 |
i agree. that's why i use mp3. but since you're ears are way better, then try abxing nero or itunes aac or vorbis at 192kbps. these formats are compatible with a lot more devices than mpc.
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 14 2007, 19:21
Post
#7
|
|
|
Group: Banned Posts: 735 Joined: 19-March 06 Member No.: 28599 |
My ears are "no way better", they're just normal ears. You can probably hear AAC issue in this thread:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=57353 That is what I call silly audible issue at q0.6 And there are reports of people saying that you won't get transparent settings in OGG unless you go really high. MPC vs. OGG to me have no hardware support in practice. Of course OGG has MORE support, but not even near MP3. So no reason for OGG. This post has been edited by Bourne: Sep 14 2007, 19:22 |
|
|
|
|
Sep 14 2007, 19:40
Post
#8
|
|
 Group: Members Posts: 933 Joined: 3-June 02 From: USA Member No.: 2204 |
QUOTE (Bourne @ Sep 14 2007, 12:31) Since the FLAC's are huge and would take very much space to store them (about 50 DVD-Rs) Do you really want to chance re-ripping all your music years later! For under $25.00 USD you can buy a 50 pack of DVD-R's at most places, in the U.S.A. at least. Better yet you could also get a secondary hard disk internal or external with enough storage capacity to store your FLAC's, and any lossy format encodes derived from them you'd like to use for portable devices/automobile in the now, and in the future. -------------------- Complexity of incoherent design.
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 14 2007, 19:45
Post
#9
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 487 Joined: 5-August 02 From: Manila Member No.: 2939 |
even mpc has artifacts. that's the sad truth about lossy codecs.
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 14 2007, 19:52
Post
#10
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 232 Joined: 16-December 06 From: Brooklyn Member No.: 38728 |
QUOTE (Bourne @ Sep 14 2007, 14:02) you guys don't get it... lossless is two much... at least for now You could get 1 or more cheap external hard drives and put your FLAC's there and never touch them again until a better lossy codec comes along or unitl it becomes cost effective to listen to lossless on portables. With 500 GB at less than 100 USD and 320 GB for less than 70 USD, I see no reason to discard you FLAC's As far as what lossy format to use, I have no opinion. -------------------- EAC secure | FLAC --best -V -b 4096 | LAME 3.97 -V0 -q0 -b32
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 14 2007, 19:59
Post
#11
|
|
|
Group: Banned Posts: 735 Joined: 19-March 06 Member No.: 28599 |
QUOTE (twostar @ Sep 14 2007, 15:45) even mpc has artifacts. that's the sad truth about lossy codecs. MPC may have artifacts but everybody will agree that MPC is a much better codec than widespread MP3. And that's what counts. |
|
|
|
|
Sep 14 2007, 20:19
Post
#12
|
|
 Group: Members Posts: 104 Joined: 5-November 03 Member No.: 9669 |
QUOTE (Bourne @ Sep 14 2007, 10:59) MPC may have artifacts but everybody will agree that MPC is a much better codec than widespread MP3. And that's what counts. but I still can't see any reason to prefer MPC over Vorbis. Has Vorbis more artifacts than MPC at the same bitrate? Where can I find this test? Have you tried to ABX them? QUOTE And there are reports of people saying that you won't get transparent settings in OGG unless you go really high. Last time I checked here the common thought was that we can't test above 128kbs because all modern codecs are "trasparent" at that bitrate for the most of people, so we can't gather enough statistical data. QUOTE After ABX'ing a couple of samples in MP3 320kbps, I have come to the conclusion where MP3 is useless Which "couple of samples"??  QUOTE My ears are "no way better", they're just normal ears. Bourne you have way better ears if you can say that mp3 at 320kbps are useless after ABX just "a couple of samples". |
|
|
|
|
Sep 14 2007, 21:41
Post
#13
|
|
 Group: Members Posts: 105 Joined: 26-October 04 Member No.: 17847 |
Bourne, just don't throw out your FLAC rips! Store them anyway either on HDD or on DVD-R discs. Any lossy codec is just worse than lossless.
There are nice portable players with native FLAC support is that's your problem.... (?) This post has been edited by batagy: Sep 14 2007, 21:42 |
|
|
|
|
Sep 14 2007, 22:38
Post
#14
|
|
 Group: Members Posts: 1190 Joined: 12-January 06 From: Cambridge, MA Member No.: 27052 |
Have you considered Wavpack lossy? If you store the corrections on a DVD, you could go back to lossless without having to rerip your entire collection.
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 15 2007, 15:28
Post
#15
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 104 Joined: 5-November 03 Member No.: 9669 |
QUOTE Bourne, just don't throw out your FLAC rips! Store them anyway either on HDD or on DVD-R discs. Any lossy codec is just worse than lossless. [sarcasm] Yup and a CD is just worse than SACD. -.- [/sarcasm] I found lossy codec are better, because they need less space and I haven't found any quality difference in any application I did. This post has been edited by Mercurio: Sep 15 2007, 15:28 |
|
|
|
|
Sep 15 2007, 15:49
Post
#16
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 1494 Joined: 31-January 04 Member No.: 11664 |
QUOTE (Bourne @ Sep 15 2007, 04:21) My ears are "no way better", they're just normal ears. You can probably hear AAC issue in this thread: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=57353 That is what I call silly audible issue at q0.6 And there are reports of people saying that you won't get transparent settings in OGG unless you go really high. MPC vs. OGG to me have no hardware support in practice. Of course OGG has MORE support, but not even near MP3. So no reason for OGG. Just a thought. Try the AAC encoder at ABR mode since you are targeting 256 k or more , space and efficiency isn't of great concern. I didn't try that sample yet, but I have the feeling that 220..270k ABR will stop those [very rare] silly issues. This post has been edited by shadowking: Sep 15 2007, 15:52 |
|
|
|
|
Sep 15 2007, 16:00
Post
#17
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 120 Joined: 8-November 06 Member No.: 37320 |
QUOTE (Bourne @ Sep 14 2007, 14:02) you guys don't get it... lossless is two much... at least for now every lossy codec has its pros and cons. the only contrary about MPC is hardware support, which I remember saying "buying a well-known rockbox supported ipod". but guess what I can even connect the laptop to the stereo... I don't see myself using Vorbis/AAC/MP3 anymore (too many issues) Believe me, we get it. The question is, Do you get it? It makes no sense to get rid of your FLAC files which represent an exact copy of the originals. On top of that it is very easy to convert FLAC to any lossy format you wish to in the future. So when you get tired of your MPC files, what are you going to do then?? QUOTE MPC may have artifacts but everybody will agree that MPC is a much better codec than widespread MP3. And that's what counts. Everyone will agree?? Put me down on the disagree part here. Oh....and what counts is what you prefer because your hearing is different than everyone else's hearing.QUOTE After ABX'ing a couple of samples in MP3 320kbps, I have come to the conclusion where MP3 is useless  Wow!! I'm sure the lame devs would love to see these samples. I'm not saying you can't tell the difference. But even if you can, the difference should be very negligible as to not bother you.
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 15 2007, 16:12
Post
#18
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 1494 Joined: 31-January 04 Member No.: 11664 |
Having gone down this road many times (changing format / setting) I reached the following conclusions: The only thing for sure is mp3 or lossless. With mp3 you can use a fast non secure ripper, Use -V4 or so and get very good results in over 90 % of cases. That is lots of pressure taken of ones shoulders in backup / size management, transcoding elimination etc. The other alternative to vanilla lossless is the hybrid lossy method using correction files which I discussed in other posts. All the others leave you in the middle: Big files , much less compatibility than mp3, still not lossless and when the dissatisfaction hits (sooner or later) you are ripping again.
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 15 2007, 16:32
Post
#19
|
|
|
Group: Banned Posts: 735 Joined: 19-March 06 Member No.: 28599 |
some of you think i am trashing the FLACs... no... i just don't have anything to play them... my intention is to keep them on a drawer, that is all they serve for right now. I also have the duplicates in CD-R PCM, but CD is not a portable solution either. MP3 is ok, but other formats are much better, I am pretty sure that if everyone do a monster test on many 320kbps samples people will give up on mp3.
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 15 2007, 16:40
Post
#20
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 1494 Joined: 31-January 04 Member No.: 11664 |
QUOTE (spockep @ Sep 16 2007, 01:00) QUOTE After ABX'ing a couple of samples in MP3 320kbps, I have come to the conclusion where MP3 is useless Wow!! I'm sure the lame devs would love to see these samples. I'm not saying you can't tell the difference. But even if you can, the difference should be very negligible as to not bother you.The problem with 320 k mp3 is that when its not transparent you are stuck knowing psychologically that there is no more. You have lost portability and faith in the overkill. That usually leads to another format or re encoding. If it happens say at 160 k it is more forgivable given portability and mostly good quality. With other formats there is a higher likelyhood that some setting is always transparent - a certainty with wavpack lossy , flac optimfrog lossy. If something isn't transparent at 320 k its not great but it will be at some higher bitrate. You don't need to re encode or change setting because you know there is the capability of more. Like wise if I use a 270 k wavpack file on the PC and rockbox, i don't need to obsess about quality too much as I know the correction files are in the drawer. This post has been edited by shadowking: Sep 15 2007, 16:45 |
|
|
|
|
Sep 15 2007, 16:50
Post
#21
|
|
|
Group: Banned Posts: 735 Joined: 19-March 06 Member No.: 28599 |
nice thought shadowking
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 15 2007, 16:52
Post
#22
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 1494 Joined: 31-January 04 Member No.: 11664 |
QUOTE (Bourne @ Sep 16 2007, 01:32) some of you think i am trashing the FLACs... no... i just don't have anything to play them... my intention is to keep them on a drawer, that is all they serve for right now. I also have the duplicates in CD-R PCM, but CD is not a portable solution either. MP3 is ok, but other formats are much better, I am pretty sure that if everyone do a monster test on many 320kbps samples people will give up on mp3. In that case it doesn't matter too much which format as long as you have the player. That COWON looks pretty damn good. You can also use mp3 at half the bitrate by telling yourself 'its lossy, not perfect, But is pretty darn good a lot of the time and very convenient.' That is what I did. |
|
|
|
|
Sep 15 2007, 16:56
Post
#23
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 104 Joined: 5-November 03 Member No.: 9669 |
QUOTE (Bourne @ Sep 15 2007, 07:32) MP3 is ok, but other formats are much better, I am pretty sure that if everyone do a monster test on many 320kbps samples people will give up on mp3. Have you seen tests done here at HA? I have found the latest with MPC (but it was done only from Gurubolez on classical music) http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=36465 (so I don't understand why do you prefer mpc over vorbis) This is the listening test page of HA wiki http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?ti...Listening_Tests I haven't seen any other recent high-bitrate test but Gurubolez's one. After latest 128Kbs public test, he said QUOTE At this bitrate, further tests are indeed questionable. Quality of the tested encoders is apparently too high for most listeners at ~130 kbps - at least for those interested by participating in such tests. The 192 kbps syndrom has now reached the 128 kbps area: it's beyond most listeners abilities, including HA.org members' one. At this stage, all people who can't differenciate MP3 from Vorbis or AAC and interested by these formats should try to lower the bitrate (I guess that it's already the case for many of them). People here is starting to have troubles even at 64kbs, with modern codecs. So if you find some artifacts in "a couple of samples" with lame at 320kbs it could be only because: - You have found unlucky samples. - You have exceptionally good ears. - You haven't done ABX tests properly. With lossy codec, ABX tests are the only meter we can use. I use Vorbis at Q7 for my collection, but I know that is only a my superstition (Vorbis at q5 is fully transparent for me), and Q7 and above can not protect me from artifacts on some samples, if they exist, simply because they are untested, and a high bitrate is not necessarily a guarantee. This post has been edited by Mercurio: Sep 15 2007, 16:59 |
|
|
|
|
Sep 15 2007, 17:10
Post
#24
|
|
|
Group: Banned Posts: 735 Joined: 19-March 06 Member No.: 28599 |
mercurio! you use vorbis at q7.... what a such high bitrate! LOL
weird coming from someone who just told me that 128kbps is enough for everyone |
|
|
|
|
Sep 15 2007, 17:14
Post
#25
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 104 Joined: 5-November 03 Member No.: 9669 |
QUOTE (Bourne @ Sep 15 2007, 08:10) mercurio! you use vorbis at q7.... what a such high bitrate! LOL weird coming from someone who just told me that 128kbps is enough for everyone You are right, Q7 it is only a my superstition, you know. ...but if someone asks to me I cant answer using my superstitions.  edit: I never said "128kbps is enough for everyone", I said tests have shown that 128kbs is enough for the most people here in the most cases. This post has been edited by Mercurio: Sep 15 2007, 17:22 |
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 21st May 2013 - 09:44 |
