I believe LAME's 320Kbps is better
but...some says
mp2 is better because.. mp2 has 384Kbps...
I think BPS is not really matter but I'm just curious
Full Version: Is mp2 better than mp3?
MP2 should be better at pre-echo. On those tracks that mp3 has trouble at high bitrates mp2 should have no problem. Does mp2 introduce new problems ? who knows at these high bitrates. From my very limited tests , 192k mp2 is like 128k mp3 , so 256k mp2 should be fully transparent.
Frank Klemm also said 'mp3 is useless above 256k' and 'at 256k and over mp2 should outperform mp3'
Frank Klemm also said 'mp3 is useless above 256k' and 'at 256k and over mp2 should outperform mp3'
one disadvantage of MP2 is the joint stereo mode. It only supports intensity stereo, so you should not use js
a big advantage is: there is no sfb21 problem, each used subband has its scalefactor
a big advantage is: there is no sfb21 problem, each used subband has its scalefactor
QUOTE(Sunhillow @ Mar 19 2007, 23:36) 
one disadvantage of MP2 is the joint stereo mode. It only supports intensity stereo, so you should not use js
a big advantage is: there is no sfb21 problem, each used subband has its scalefactor
Below 192k you'd better use IS than LR - better still don't use it below 192k. I can't get gapless playback either.
If one only cares about the highest bitrate, the dispute about quality between mp2 and mp3 is not straight. Bitrate is not really a clue here, we need to check the characteristics of mp2 and mp3.
mp3 was invented in order to reduce the bitrate further ( from 192 or 224kbps of mp2 to the 128 of mp3).
Having said that, one can conclude that mp3 needs less data to store the same information (talking in terms of perceptuality).
On the other hand, mp2, being less complex that mp3, is capable of storing the data more faithfully to the original if given enough bitrate. (in theory).
One thing to have in mind, also, is the encoder. The format per se is not an indication of quality, as seen by the various mp3 encoders and their differences in quality.
MP2 encoders have not reached the same level of optimization that, for example, LAME has had, and this could nullify any comparison we do.
The only safe thing to say is that both formats, at their highest bitrate, should give a transparent encoding.
Which of them is more error prone, has to be demonstrated.
mp3 was invented in order to reduce the bitrate further ( from 192 or 224kbps of mp2 to the 128 of mp3).
Having said that, one can conclude that mp3 needs less data to store the same information (talking in terms of perceptuality).
On the other hand, mp2, being less complex that mp3, is capable of storing the data more faithfully to the original if given enough bitrate. (in theory).
One thing to have in mind, also, is the encoder. The format per se is not an indication of quality, as seen by the various mp3 encoders and their differences in quality.
MP2 encoders have not reached the same level of optimization that, for example, LAME has had, and this could nullify any comparison we do.
The only safe thing to say is that both formats, at their highest bitrate, should give a transparent encoding.
Which of them is more error prone, has to be demonstrated.
Frank Klemm's saying 'mp3 is useless above 256k' is pretty much what I feel.
At ~256 kbps mp3 can be close to perceptual perfection IMO except for pre-echo problems.
As for mp2 I once did a restricted listening test with a few samples that are hard to encode.
toolame and twolame weren't transparent to me even at 320 kbps, whereas QDesign's mp2 encoder was.
At ~256 kbps mp3 can be close to perceptual perfection IMO except for pre-echo problems.
As for mp2 I once did a restricted listening test with a few samples that are hard to encode.
toolame and twolame weren't transparent to me even at 320 kbps, whereas QDesign's mp2 encoder was.
QUOTE
' date='Mar 19 2007, 14:41' post='479574']MP2 encoders have not reached the same level of optimization that, for example, LAME has had, and this could nullify any comparison we do.
You don't know professional MP2 encoders like QDesign, IRT or Digigram, do you?
What then about AAC, should be LC-AAC been better than mp2 at same higher bitrate? for ex 384?
AFAIK AAC have most efficient JS/MS, but maybe is useless on that bitrate, but better is keep it on.
AFAIK AAC have most efficient JS/MS, but maybe is useless on that bitrate, but better is keep it on.
Thanks for replys.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.