i know this is a stupid question, but really is mpc really the best? I mean If i'm not mistaken i believe it cuts out the higher frequency parts like from 16 and above. I could be wrong but it seems to me that it's not that good in the higher frequency range. And this is supposed to be the audiophiles best compression? I recently stoped encoding with lame and now i'm either looking at this format or ogg, suggestions anyone?

yeah, I suggest you use the Search and read for a while before you post something that's very easy to find out on your own.

No, it doesn't.

mpc is supposed to be the best lossy codec. If you want better then mpc, you need to look into lossless codecs!

Like i said stupid question

You might also want to look into mp4/aac! I think it will have better hardware support than mpc, and the quality is better than mp3, the same as if not better than ogg Vorbis, but I don't think it can compete with mpc's quality at high bit rates!

I don't think it's a stupid question at all - it's a fair and honest question, IMHO. Not everyone is fully up on codec stuff, and much of it is new. The martketplace is no help, either. I should think that's one reason this is a public forum. A good place to learn about it is here. Do the links and everything and it'll be a good basic ed for ya.

Anyway, from what I understand , the opposite is true with mpc. It includes higher frequency to 20, at least, and I think its 22. It's all apparent when you listen.

MPC doesn't use a fixed lowpass like fx. LAME does. It's more dynamic.



Lowpass In Mpc
Frequency Cutoff?, Known for =<4, what about =<5?

I've read many sites and many posts and from what I understand without a shred of doubt is that MPC is the best lossy codec out there. I guess I'll start to archive my cd's now with this encoder. With either positive or negative feedback, thanks.

"Best" should really be qualified a bit more.

In terms of audio quality, MPC is widely regarded as being probably the best performer in this area at moderate to high bitrates. In other areas, other codecs could be seen as being better though. It really depends on what you're looking for and which attributes you value.

Could you be specific, Jan S., about fixed lowpass and LAME and why it's "more dynamic"? What differences might this translate into in an encoding?

I think the way MusePack is dynamic about the cut-off is that it simply looks to see whether other frequency content masks the high frequencies. In most normal music, everything above 19 kHz is masked, but in the absence of much audible content at mid to high frequencies, a loud 19.5 or 20 kHz tone (very unusual) might be audible. LAME APS would cut it out with a fixed filter. MusePack --standard --xlevel would realise it's audible and encode it. A lot of the time loud tones at medium high frequencies simply mask out quiet tones at roughly 16 kHz and up, so it can be quite proper that MPC eliminates them.

Some of jrbamford's binaural recordings at musepack --standard --xlevel from 48kHz source, such as the visit to a Library, include moments (visible on a spectrum analyzer) where very high frequencies are encoded (e.g. a door closing). MPC seems to think they might be audible to some people, or at least that some parts of the same spectral band might be audible, perhaps as part of a transient response, so it leaves them in (although it may well allow plenty of distortion within those frequencies at a level that is inaudible).

Musepack isn't limited for bitrate during any frame, so it can afford this. MP3 is limited to 320 kbps plus bit reservoir and has the sfb21 problem, which are restrictive at times, so perhaps that's why it needs to be more aggressive rather than just leaving the psychoacoustic model to its own devices, and trades off a rare situation to fix more common artifacts at normal frequencies.

Don't forget that 20 kHz is less than one semitone above 19 kHz, so musically this is virtually insignificant. 16 kHz is only 3 semitones below 19 kHz.

MPC is the best lossy codec for high quality archiving and playing music.

But since a few days there is a really interesting thread here at HA about Wavepack.
(you find it quick by search all forums)
here it is... :
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/show.php/act/.../ST/f/32/t/8416

www.wavepack.com


If you don't mind 264 kbit/s or 320 averaged bitrate, wavepacks lossy or especially the hybrid mode (both in setting high quality) results to great quality.

The hybrid mode is a combination of a lossy part, and a lossless part.

As somebody mentioned and tried/reported already in that wavepack thread, it should work, to combine MPC and a lossless codec, perhaps flac, to hybrid mode.

The advantage to wavepacks hybrid mode would be:

for the lossy part would be smaller bitrates possible (than those min. 264 kbit/s), like q5-q7 or q8 in MPC, and best quality for these small MPC bitrates.
The additional lossless part (which contains the difference-wave between the original wave and the decoded mpc-wave) offers the possibility to restore the whole original wave, like in wavepack.

It should be possible to program something, which plays even the hybrid consisting of "mpc & flac" or "mpc & lossless".

so, already now Wavepack hybrid is a great format.
I started trying it yesterday in hybrid mode at a bitrate of the min. of 265 kbit/s (high setting) for the lossy part.

That sounds great.

The idea of having a lossy small part, which can be played on its own, and another file for restoring the whole wave losslessly, this is just a great idea.


So, the best out there:

MPC, or WavePack Hybrid



perhaps in future:
a hybrid based on MPC ?!

newbie question:

what quality setting [mpc (6,7,8?)] overpasses the -alt-preset insane quality?

Thank you!

I'd say that mpc q5 (standard) already surpasses lame --ap insane.

It is a common misconception to think that the standard preset is inferior to the best mp3 preset, or is of worse quality than other commonly used codecs. The mpc standard preset (q5) is and has always been targeted to get transparent quality at a reasonable size. Quality over 5 can be useful just to fix rare problems by means of using a brute force approach, or for non-orthodox purposes such as transcoding.

You beat me to it User, and thanks for posting the link to the other thread.

Wavpack lossy/hybrid is really proving to be an interesting combination if you can handle the higher bit rates for the lossy file by itself. Dibrom's point about what is the "best" is spot on, as it all depends on your needs. With my need to transcode regularly to Minidisc, Wavpack lossy has consistently outperformed all the other lossy codecs by a considerable amount in terms of a lack of introduced artifacts. (Since the last post, I've done further transcoding into ATRAC3 testing against MPC q10, LAME insane and Vorbis q10 using my music, and to my ears Wavpack lossy @ 320 kbits has not introduced any readily discernible transcoding artifacts every single time. Next best has been MPC q10 with the odd minor glitch, and then LAME/Vorbis further behind with smearing.)

It also seems to be a very decent lossy compression method in its own right if you compare it against the others at 320 kbit, although I'm sure that MPC at 320 kbit is transparent to the vast majority of listeners.

At the end of the day though, you need to check them all out and go with what works best for you, with your compatibility needs, storage limitations and quality requirements.

Den.