Q7/insane (with xlevel)

I get a deja vu feeling with this poll.

Maybe it's to see if someone changed since last time
--
Ge Someone

Yeah, it was me that changed. From Blade to my own kludge of a VBR command line in LAME, to aps, to Vorbis, and now onto MPC --xtreme --xlevel. I like options that begin with x. Joy.

Mind you, the change was over the course of a couple years, but...

Warning: Possibly a post here that would make me instantly banned from a Doom9-like forum


Whats --xlevel? Is it still needed, or as http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/4239 says, is it a question of "--xlevel switch is obsolete and not recommended. "? My ability to search seems pathetic -- cant find a definitive answer...

Should I use it or not? (mppenc 1.14 used)

(sorry sorry sorry)

Naw, the people here seem to be more friendly than the image you create of Doom9-ers.

Heh, there's a disparity between your sig and the tone of your message, too. Nicely ironic.

Anyhoo, to the best of my knowledge, --xlevel merely prevents clipping during encoding, I believe. I might be bass-ackwards, but the MPC info page in the forums recommended it, and I wanted to be doubly sure that even the tricky encodes are done properly, as the difficult tests of codecs tend to be in the sort of esoteric electronica that I like.

hi

looks like I am responsible for that piece of [mis-]information. I am sorry.
I guess I thoughtlessly chose the wrong wording: xlevel was not "obsolete", but just the opposite - it was "too new" - a hack of SV7 format, not compatible with previous decoders.
Otherwise it is safe to use, and now it has even reached the "recommended" status.

IIRC, on some really badly clipped sample even xlevel was not enough to avoid internal clipping, so --scale might still be useful (if one ever cares to encode such crap overcompressed cd.)

I like high bitrate switches
--quality 8.5 (braindead+extra bits) --xlevel is my option as it is about the same -always less, fortunately- size than LAME --alt-preset insane, the mp3 preset I mainly use when mp3 is needed. However, I voted q8/xlevel instead of higher, as quality 8 and 8.5 are little improvement. Just a few bits for transients

Normal use: --xtreme --xlevel
Special musics: --braindead --xlevel

Since can hardly tell an Ogg Vorbis -q0 form the CD with my speakers, --standard --xlevel is far more than enough

I'm currently using --standard --xlevel, my files seem to average 180kbps and i can't notice a difference using better settings. In previous versions standard produced much lower bitrates, so back then i used --xtreme or even --insane (before braindead days).

I also though that so many people voted for --standard in a previous but recent poll should give a more democratic view. This setting is also better than any setting with lame, so even if not perfect, it should be easy to convince those 192kbps mp3 makers out there to switch format (i hope)

The Q6/xtreme (with xlevel) is fine for me at 95 % for the music that I encoded, but a few albums need more, then I use Q7/insane (with xlevel).
When mp3 is needed I use --aps or --ape with LAME 3.90.2 by Dibrom
For portable use --alt preset cbr 128

Sorry, I didn't see the "What commandline do you use with MPC?" poll but I also was interested to see if people where using --xlevel & I would like to see user changes since then.

I don't use MPC often, but if I do, I use --quality 5 --xlevel. (I used to use xtreme, but there's no real reason for that, just the "warm fuzzy feeling". )

I began to have "warm fuzzy feeling" when I have started to use MPC with --quality 5 --xlevel instead of using lame's -aps-Y

I use 'Q5/standard (with xlevel)' for a better world

best regards,
david

Just for your information: One of my song encoded to a 203Kbps MPC file using --xtreme --xlevel, transcoded to a 260Kbps MP3 file using LAME (3.90) --alt-preset extreme.

Therefore I think --xtreme is enough for me.
By the way, before MPC I was using LAME -V0 -b128 which encodes into similiar bitrate, so I didn't feel any 'space penalty' nor 'space gain' while switching. Great. B)

Why in the world did you transcode it from the MPC instead of just enoding it to MP3 from the original ? The results probably would have been different, and, it's the right thing to do..
(MPC r0x0rZ my s0x0rZ)

haha.. you thief you!!

-q7 -x

IMhO: transcoded with VBR from some other lossy will be larger than if encoded from original WAV!
If you transcoded you should force smaller bitrate then you have in you encode.

Sure, that's not a good case for such grave conclusion.
You have made right decision but from incorrect situation!

I typically start with --standard --xlevel.

Its usually very difficult for me to tell the difference between --standard and --xtreme however I do use --insane --xlevel, and --braindead --xlevel when there is something I really want to have the best quality -- even though I can't hear the difference.

I can only attribute using the higher quality switches above --standard --xlevel because who knows on better equipment I "may" be able to tell the difference but that's just speculation at this point since I've been using the same PC, crummy half-dead OEM Voyetra-TBS1 soundcard, $100 Dell-Altec Lansing Dolby Pro-Logic speakers, etc., for over four years now.

This, generally speaking, just isn't true.

The size of the transcoded file will mainly depend on:
- the original signal's properties
- which lossy codec and parameters you used
- what VBR settings (including quantization strategy, noise shaping etc.) you're using with the second lossy codec.

In fact, a clever codec might very well discard (or substitute) most of the noise introduced by the first encode, so that the new filesize will be a bit smaller, even for the same codec and parameters.


Again, this is wrong in general.
In general, you just have to ensure that you waste as few bits as possible during the second encode. This means you'd have to encode using a comparable or slightly inferior quality... which, if you use two different codecs, doesn't necessary mean a lower bitrate !

Exemple: When transcoding from MPC --radio, which MP3 settings should you use ? Well, maybe --alt-preset standard.... except if you want to preserve as much time resolution as possible, in which case you'd prefer --alt-preset insane !