Full Version: MPC to WAV to WMA/MP3
Since MPC is the most transparent lossy compression, is it appropriate to archive albums in MPC and then convert them to something compatible with a portable player for the purpose of listening on the go?
no. it's the evil of transcoding.
making a mp3 out of a mpc file results in a much worse quality than making a mp3 out of a lossless/wave file. though the size/bitrate is the same.
if you want to use your files for portables, you should either stick to mp3 from the beginning, or backup your files with a lossless codec (flac, ape, or wavepack) and convert those for portable usage.
btw,
there are some settings with mp3 that have very transparent sound
eg. with lame 3.90.2 and --alt-preset standard
it's close to transparent and you avoid transcoding.
greets, amano
making a mp3 out of a mpc file results in a much worse quality than making a mp3 out of a lossless/wave file. though the size/bitrate is the same.
if you want to use your files for portables, you should either stick to mp3 from the beginning, or backup your files with a lossless codec (flac, ape, or wavepack) and convert those for portable usage.
btw,
there are some settings with mp3 that have very transparent sound
eg. with lame 3.90.2 and --alt-preset standard
it's close to transparent and you avoid transcoding.
greets, amano
I hate difficult decisions!
1. Use MPC and get mostly transpaernt audio files at really nice file sizes.
2. Use Ogg, loose a little quality and wait for a portable Ogg player (which seem to be on the horizon.)
3. Use MP3, loose even more quality but preserve the ability to play them on the go.
4. Use lossless, spend lots of money on storage, and convert them for portable use.
1. Use MPC and get mostly transpaernt audio files at really nice file sizes.
2. Use Ogg, loose a little quality and wait for a portable Ogg player (which seem to be on the horizon.)
3. Use MP3, loose even more quality but preserve the ability to play them on the go.
4. Use lossless, spend lots of money on storage, and convert them for portable use.
Although transcoding isn't really a good thing to do, going from MPC to MP3 for portables isn't as bad as going from most other lossy codecs to MP3. Usually you'll get pretty good sounding files and on a portable I doubt you'll be able to even notice any possible problems. My recommendation is encoding your files into MPC at --xtreme --xlevel and transcoding into LAME MP3 --alt-preset standard for portable use.
Dude, it's fine. Don't listen to the transcode police. Just don't share the transcoded MP3s! 
Oh, and just encode the MPCs at standard. Some people say that xtreme gives you better transcodes, but I've never seen it. Extreme's just a waste of bits. I archive all my music as mpc -q5 and transcode to MP3 for my portable.
Oh, and just encode the MPCs at standard. Some people say that xtreme gives you better transcodes, but I've never seen it. Extreme's just a waste of bits. I archive all my music as mpc -q5 and transcode to MP3 for my portable.
well it's your decision. some mp3 settings are really good. artefacts are inaudible for 98% of mankind (these forums represent the missing 2% of it).
the increase of quality on your harddisk with mpc will lead to decreased quality with portables (and those are often very sensible to quality, eg with good headphones).
ogg could be a good compromise. I wouldn't store music with ANY lossy codec.
the problem of transcoding:
you have to combine two codes and every codec throws away its own bits. that CAN result in quite good results, but CAN result in bad ones. a mp3 will be worse if converted from a lossy codec than from a lossless, that's for sure. that's by design and logic and regardless of the used kb/s.
you say: I need mpc, because it's good sound. and mp3 is not acceptable for that.
but with this decision you will even degrade the mp3's you didn't want before because of quality reasons. weird, isn't it.
the increase of quality on your harddisk with mpc will lead to decreased quality with portables (and those are often very sensible to quality, eg with good headphones).
ogg could be a good compromise. I wouldn't store music with ANY lossy codec.
the problem of transcoding:
you have to combine two codes and every codec throws away its own bits. that CAN result in quite good results, but CAN result in bad ones. a mp3 will be worse if converted from a lossy codec than from a lossless, that's for sure. that's by design and logic and regardless of the used kb/s.
you say: I need mpc, because it's good sound. and mp3 is not acceptable for that.
but with this decision you will even degrade the mp3's you didn't want before because of quality reasons. weird, isn't it.
The general opinion I've gathered around here is that the optimal solution to lossy audio archiving is to encode with MPC -xtreme, and transcode if necessary for portable use, but for portable use only. Using MPC -q6, and converting to -aps MP3, the quality loss should be minimal. -q5 will (apparently?) cause some audible distortion. Lossless to MP3 is optimal, but not everyone wants bitrates of ~700-800 kbps. Alternately, you can always re-rip and encode to MP3 if it's a real issue.
In this situation, transcoding is not as evil as it is made out to be. Transcoding while expecting to preserve the sound quality between generations is foolhardy, though. Myself, if/when I get an MP3 portable, I'll likely transcode from MPC -q6 to LAME's new -preset medium or portable for portable use, because it ought to be stable by then.
@amano:
The quality loss will be minimal. You'll run into MP3 artefacts before the transcoding artefacts, if I understand what I've read here properly.
If you're only listening to music on your portable, while compressed, use MP3 -aps. But if you're using it for anything else (ie. burning to audio CD, playing through a nice system), because MP3 is not transparent even at high bitrates for many people, you may be losing out.
@karmakillernz:
Exactly.
In this situation, transcoding is not as evil as it is made out to be. Transcoding while expecting to preserve the sound quality between generations is foolhardy, though. Myself, if/when I get an MP3 portable, I'll likely transcode from MPC -q6 to LAME's new -preset medium or portable for portable use, because it ought to be stable by then.
@amano:
The quality loss will be minimal. You'll run into MP3 artefacts before the transcoding artefacts, if I understand what I've read here properly.
If you're only listening to music on your portable, while compressed, use MP3 -aps. But if you're using it for anything else (ie. burning to audio CD, playing through a nice system), because MP3 is not transparent even at high bitrates for many people, you may be losing out.
@karmakillernz:
Exactly.
Hi,
For my portable, I transcode MPC q6 to MP3 aps or 128 and have no problem with the quality.
auldyin
For my portable, I transcode MPC q6 to MP3 aps or 128 and have no problem with the quality.
auldyin
I don't remember which thread exactly this was (the search function is your friend 
), but someone recently came to this conclusion via ABX (I can't remember who):
- WAV => MPC --xtreme => MP3 --aps was indistinguishable from WAV => MP3 --aps.
- In some cases, lowering the MPC setting to --standard and then transcoding to MP3 produced non-transparent, but not annoying results (i.e. the guy could ABX the transcoded from the original MP3).
I'd go for --standard nevertheless. Seriously, you won't ever notice those subtle differences on a portable player. However, if you're also planning to encode files for use in a home DVD player hooked up to a stereo system, for example, I'd recommend --xtreme.
[EDIT] Found the thread: "Standard or Extreme" (watch out for Gecko's posts) [/EDIT]
), but someone recently came to this conclusion via ABX (I can't remember who):- WAV => MPC --xtreme => MP3 --aps was indistinguishable from WAV => MP3 --aps.
- In some cases, lowering the MPC setting to --standard and then transcoding to MP3 produced non-transparent, but not annoying results (i.e. the guy could ABX the transcoded from the original MP3).
I'd go for --standard nevertheless. Seriously, you won't ever notice those subtle differences on a portable player. However, if you're also planning to encode files for use in a home DVD player hooked up to a stereo system, for example, I'd recommend --xtreme.
[EDIT] Found the thread: "Standard or Extreme" (watch out for Gecko's posts) [/EDIT]
Correct me if I'm wrong... If you encode with --standard then transcode to MP3 @ --aps aren't your files going to get bigger? (MPC @ ~160 vs. MP3 @ ~192)?
Weird!
Weird!
Yes, it's a bit weird.
But MPC --standard sounds better than -aps (MUCH better than cbr 192). It's the quality that matters, not the bitrate.
But MPC --standard sounds better than -aps (MUCH better than cbr 192). It's the quality that matters, not the bitrate.
QUOTE(dewey1973 @ Apr 7 2003 - 03:31 AM)
I hate difficult decisions!
1. Use MPC and get mostly transpaernt audio files at really nice file sizes.
2. Use Ogg, loose a little quality and wait for a portable Ogg player (which seem to be on the horizon.)
3. Use MP3, loose even more quality but preserve the ability to play them on the go.
4. Use lossless, spend lots of money on storage, and convert them for portable use.
1. Use MPC and get mostly transpaernt audio files at really nice file sizes.
2. Use Ogg, loose a little quality and wait for a portable Ogg player (which seem to be on the horizon.)
3. Use MP3, loose even more quality but preserve the ability to play them on the go.
4. Use lossless, spend lots of money on storage, and convert them for portable use.
Do you own a portable player? If it's an iRiver, vorbis support shouldn't take long. Vorbis is the ideal codec in this case:
1) It fits your archiving needs (At q5 I bet you can't ABX it against the original file)
2) If fits your portable needs, since birate peeling is being developed and it will be implemented soon (I hope). That will allow you to lower the birate without having to re-encode or transcode the file. It's a lossless proccess.
Many on this forum do say "transcoding ist death", which gets a bit mundane the 100th time you read it, and ideally you shouldn't do it. If you don't have the space for lossless on your PC though MPC is an excellent compromise.
I have to transcode as I have a Minidisc recorder which will only store stuff in it's native ATRAC format. I have dabbled with MPC xtreme to ATRAC, MPC standard to ATRAC, ogg q5 to ATRAC, ogg q6 to ATRAC, and LAME 3.90 aps to ATRAC, and I find that I can't ABX between MPC standard to ATRAC and original WAV to ATRAC, but I can pick up minor differences in both the above ogg and LAME examples through decent headphones in a quiet environment. They are not significant artefacts, but just slight changes in background noise, etc, and they aren't particularly distracting.
I have also used MPCexchange to transcode both xtreme and standard mpcs to aps MP3 files for my DVD player, and the difference between xtreme and standard is minimal. Out of many tracks I have tried, I detected 2 minor examples with standard that were not presesnt with xtreme, but you would not pick them up in isolation, only in back to back listenings, so I'm sticking with standard using 1.15r for all my "archiving", and am very happy with the results.
The best thing to do is try some representative examples of your music, and decide what is acceptable for you.
Hope this helps.
Den.
I have to transcode as I have a Minidisc recorder which will only store stuff in it's native ATRAC format. I have dabbled with MPC xtreme to ATRAC, MPC standard to ATRAC, ogg q5 to ATRAC, ogg q6 to ATRAC, and LAME 3.90 aps to ATRAC, and I find that I can't ABX between MPC standard to ATRAC and original WAV to ATRAC, but I can pick up minor differences in both the above ogg and LAME examples through decent headphones in a quiet environment. They are not significant artefacts, but just slight changes in background noise, etc, and they aren't particularly distracting.
I have also used MPCexchange to transcode both xtreme and standard mpcs to aps MP3 files for my DVD player, and the difference between xtreme and standard is minimal. Out of many tracks I have tried, I detected 2 minor examples with standard that were not presesnt with xtreme, but you would not pick them up in isolation, only in back to back listenings, so I'm sticking with standard using 1.15r for all my "archiving", and am very happy with the results.
The best thing to do is try some representative examples of your music, and decide what is acceptable for you.
Hope this helps.
Den.
QUOTE
Do you own a portable player?
Yes... But it's a Nomad Jukebox 6GB. MP3 and WMA only. (And I know how everyone feels about WMA.)
Aside: That's what started this whole quest. I have around 50 CDRs full of album encoded by WMA at 96kbs. Then I found EAC and I thought... Cool better rips. I had just been unable to make a mix because one of the wma files was currupt. From the EAC I found all the links that brought me to places like HA and therefore realized how bad my decision was to trust the MS hype and use WMA.
QUOTE
so I'm sticking with standard using 1.15r for all my "archiving"
What made you choose an "alpha" for archiving. Isn't that risky? (I know this has been argued in other posts in the forum.)
QUOTE
I have also used MPCexchange to transcode both xtreme and standard mpcs to aps MP3 files for my DVD player, and the difference between xtreme and standard is minimal.
Where is this application available?
QUOTE(dewey1973 @ Apr 9 2003 - 10:32 PM)
Where is this application available?
RareWares (check my Sig)
MPC section.
Somewhat off topic:
How to write a RealAudio compression program:
1. Whack yourself in the head until you are deaf. This step is very important.
2. Dip your head in boiling water so as to scour out any remnants of your eardrums.
3. Program some little crappy thing in Tcl that randomly generates sound frequencies according to the pixels in a GIF image.
4. Sell it for $20 per license.
5. Become rich.
6. Buy a small country.
7. Be assassinated.
Have fun. Remember, you have to be deaf before any of the other steps make any sense.
-:Lord_nightrose
How to write a RealAudio compression program:
1. Whack yourself in the head until you are deaf. This step is very important.
2. Dip your head in boiling water so as to scour out any remnants of your eardrums.
3. Program some little crappy thing in Tcl that randomly generates sound frequencies according to the pixels in a GIF image.
4. Sell it for $20 per license.
5. Become rich.
6. Buy a small country.
7. Be assassinated.
Have fun. Remember, you have to be deaf before any of the other steps make any sense.
-:Lord_nightrose
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.