i want to make a music collection of my cd's - for a music server, that means size and encoding time play an inferior role. but which format is the best one of these

lame 3.90.2 -alt-preset extreme
mpc 1.14 --quality 6 --xlevel
ogg with oggdropXPd 1.5 with quality setting 7

thx for you comments

mr. pi

If quality is key, then go for Musepack. Musepack doesn't have any artifacting that I've ever been able to hear over my home stereo speakers hooked into my media server. I can hear some of the pre-echo smearing from MP3, never played with Ogg much. I have noticed a drop in low frequencies on some lower bitrate MP3's compared to my mpc files, but that was back 2-3 years ago when I thought BladeEnc was the best MP3 encoder available. It's very possible that LAME doesn't exhibit any issues like this.

If you want to potentially drop the files onto a portable device MP3 is the easiest option, or you could use MPC2MP3 to convert files you want to tote along to a lower bitrate MP3.

I've setup a distributed home audio system for a friend of mine that plays on speakers throughout the house and uses MPC as the file format. I setup MPC2MP3 for his son's portable and life is good.

G

At the bitrate you are aiming for musepack is definitely the best.

You may also consider using --quality 5.
I really doubt you will here any flaws even with this.

<------ avatar

MPC is DEFINITELY the best choice for this. (i suggest quality 6 to 8)
AAC is good as well, but MPC simply has higher quality at this bitrate range (~160 to ~300). For under 160kbps AAC is much better than MPC. Vorbis is great at bitrates of ~120 and below.
But of course, you should try all yourself and choose what you prefer, don't just take anyone's word.

Yes it is generally known that MPC offers the best quality for bitrates over 160kbps. And since your suggestions are above 160kbps...
Of course MPC has its drawbacks, but these seem not to apply to you (hardware support)

thx for your comments and your help with knowledge - i think i'll take musepack

regards

mr. pi

I would prefer Musepack v1.14 --quality 6 --xlevel, easily.

I agree. MPC not only has the highest quality at these bitrates, but is also very fast, something you may come to appreciate about halfway into the project. It also has well implemented ReplayGain facilities and good tagging (which will improve even further).

I use MPEG Audio Collection to keep track of my files. It's freeware and supports multiple CD-R/W's, HD's or folders (offline, too) to be searched through, by tags or filenames, for example. Highly recommended.

/ Uosdwis

I haven't performed extensive tests at these bitrate. Did some ABX tests on metal and baroque music : not totally representative, but a good basis.

I never came to the conclusion of the superiority of aac over mpc. In many cases, mpc --radio and PsyTEL -streaming gave the same global quality. In some case (esp. drums attacks), mpc was really better than psytel aac, and in others, aac beat mpc.
On what basis can you assert that aac « much better » than mpc is ? What kind of sample ?

On the basis that it just is.

OK i quickly tried to find a nice sample to show this, and found a perfect one, "iron.wav".
The AAC (encoded with Psytel AACEnc 2.15) and MPC (version 1.14) files are almost identical in size. MPC is encoded using quality 4 preset (or "radio"), AAC encoded using streaming preset.
It's very obvious that high frequencies in the MPC sample are cut at a low place. That's what this preset does, cuts frequencies over 16.5KHz (ouch), and i clearly notice a ringing kind of sound. The AAC sample sounds much better, it has no ringing, and only frequencies over 18.5KHz are cut. Still, i'd NEVER encode my files at these frequencies, i NEED high frequencies, and high quality, only did that to prove my point ..

Download the two files here.

1) I get a 404 error
2) Is the original WAV file included?

What do you mean 404 error?! it's a correct link 100% positive.

And nope, i'll add an ofr (OptimFROG) lossless file.

I need the original file in order to perform a fair comparison (ABX blind test). I suspect a metallic coloration on cymbals with the aac file : must listen to the original.
But you're right : some attacks lost their intensity with mpc... but i'm not sure that the sharpness of psytel is a real advantage. I'm really irritate at 31-32 by an obvious distorsion in the aac file ; mpc doesn't sound so inatural.

EDIT : please, an ape or flac file...

MusePaCk is the best quality for bitrates above 160kbps or so, even quality 5 will do for most people.

AAC has promising features, but it still needs tuning for higher bitrates, and so does Ogg Vorbis, so both are not suitable for maximun quality without going lossless. (IE. anything above 160kbps in these formats is a waste).

Mp3 is a little better tuned (at least with lame), but the HQ settings (Dibrom´s APS) are always struggling against the format limits so when it really needs more it can't get it, so the format itself is constraining it. Mp3 is only desirable if you happen to have a stand alone that only accepts this format. In other words: DEPRECATED

I distrust any other formats, save for Ogg Vorbis and Ogg Speex for lower bitrates. Specially avoid WMA and RA at all costs.

I'll third the request for the original. and please, no frogs, even a zipped wav file would be better.

Sorry, i only get redirected to http://web1000.globalreachinc.com/404/main...abcsearch2.html, which seems to be the provider's 404 page.

mr pi: For your needs, my suggestion is MPC, too.

Ready now. Sorry for the huge delay.
Sorry, i use OptimFROG because it provides better compression than FLAC or APE, download it here (the. stable version, not the alpha) and the Winamp plugin, and Kermit (front-end by Speek)
CiTay, i really don't know what to say... don't know why it doesn't work for you, sorry..

Please provide the original in some recognizable format or face the consequences :)

It is a "recognizable" format. Deal with it or suffer my wrath!

Thank you for this original. I have not enough time to perform a whole radiography of this file (It's late in France, and I must wake up soon )

Just take attention on two point.

The first one is the same I detected on the previous post : 32.0 - 33.4
There is a real distorsion with aac file, when mpc only lower the intensity of attack.



The second point is for me most obvious, and really intolerable : 17.4-19.1
The distorsion reach a very high level, and if mpc different is, the difference is not really perceived as a degradation.




Am I alone to find aac more detestable on this point ?

Before the thread splitting (I apologise : i'm guilty for this divergence)
mr pi > I recommend you musepack for your project.

Mr pi said it's for music server, does this means streaming is involved? If it does then mpc isn't good choise, is it?


Well, seems it only infects IE: IE and other IE-based browsers in fact do redirect you when trying to access this page. Mozilla do not.

Before meeting morpheus, two other points.



Cymbal again. Distorted in the two case, but one file sound more metallic :



=> I have no doubt. My ears are more annoying by the distorsion of PsyTEL on each cymbal attack. I noticed (suspected) immediatly in the first post the « inatural » sound and the « metallic coloration » of the aac file. Cymbals are bad with Psytel (not good with mpc, but more tolerable)



A small cymbal attack, with drums (tic-tic).
When I listened it with winamp, I heard a forum of pre-echo => ABX



mpc and aac are not transparent, but mpc don't disturb me (4.5/5), whan I recognize immediatly a pre-echo artifact with PsyTEL.



==> GENERAL AND PERSONAL CONCLUSION :

I prefer mpc in this sample, and I don't find aac to be « much better ».

I tried IE as well and it doesn't reidirect me..

And, i'd think that it's for streaming or something too and recommend Ogg Vorbis, but since he mentioned:

I understood what he's looking for

Hmm, well guruboolez, for me it's intolerable to llisten to this sample with no frequencies over 16.5KHz, and i prefer the psytel distortion than the (horriible ) MPC --quality 4 distortion. Yeah, different ears i suppose. And i certainly count a frequency cut that low a distortion (on MPC especially, and AAC as well), it's more intolerable for me to listen to this lacking sample (with terrible rings) than to the AAC with annoying metalic sound. Please do me a favor everyone who's reading this, NEVER archive your music with these presets!!! It'll probably hurt me more that it'll hurt you (and i won't even listen to it, just torment myself "oh my god, people are encoding using awful preset! argh ah..") ..

After reading such comments on horrible mpc and infamous Psytel, I'm not sure that someone will in the next future archive music at those bitrates

Different ears, different notations. Interesting. Thanks for your comments, and for the sample.
And for the winner, should we post a new poll ?

Heh, you're welcome. And thanks for the nice discussion.
And a poll, oh man just not another winner opll ..
See ya, late, i'm off for now, bye, sionara, arivederchi.

Just a thought, did you perhaps play the MPC file in Winamp when you tested it? There is nasty bug in 0.97f with PNS, I have fixed it silently for installer week or two ago. This bug makes all files with quality < 5 sound horrible.

hmm...


I think he did it on purpose ...
Anyway there is not much point in using MPC at low bitrates.

I have never tried it, nor compared with AAC,
but it is 'known' that AAC performs surprisingly well at lower bitrates, compared to MPC.
However one should be careful with 'it is known that...' so SK1 did well in doing this little test (even if it got 'corrupted')

Ha, very funny :\... I don't do such things on purpose.
I used 0.96. Downloaded the new one now, tested, sounds the same.
Thanks for trusting me to be an honest guy ...