Which is likelier transparent? LAME V2/MPC std./lossyWAV extraportable, for portable usage |
![]() ![]() |
Which is likelier transparent? LAME V2/MPC std./lossyWAV extraportable, for portable usage |
Aug 29 2011, 18:26
Post
#1
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 32 Joined: 15-November 03 From: Munich Member No.: 9858 |
Hi,
I probably won't be able to abx anyway, but from a technical point of view: which of the three codecs (and corresponding settings) would likely produce the least noticeable artefacts? So far I have used MPC standard, since it gave me the smallest file size. What's your opinion? Cheers johnb ----- Sorry, just noticed that the Topic was truncated. It should have said lame V2, mpc standard, Lossywav extraportable This post has been edited by johnb: Aug 29 2011, 18:30 |
|
|
|
Aug 29 2011, 19:25
Post
#2
|
|
![]() Group: Members Posts: 915 Joined: 15-December 01 From: Germany Member No.: 662 |
QUOTE (lossywav --help) extraportable lowest quality output, not fully transparent. Lame V2 and MPC standard are generally considered transparent. The most recent (2005) listening test I found, comparing both, is this: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=36465 performed by a single listener with good ears: guruboolez on a single genre: classical. In this particular test both produce similar (if not statistically identical) but non-transparent quality. AFAIK there is no recent test which provides a general answer to your question (many listeners, diverse sample set), in part because conclusive results are not expected. |
|
|
|
![]() ![]() |
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 19th June 2013 - 02:54 |