▲

[Pike84]

MP3 is the standard.  You know that all software and devices are going to be able to work with it, and that any player is going to be able to handle it.
In principle, I like lossless compression best for the sound quality, but my .ape experiments are only for this pc.
For Ogg Vorbis, which is also lossy, the quality seems lower than MP3 at the high bitrates I prefer, though I'll admit I haven't tried that many samples.  If anybody has a Baroque or Bluegrass or Beethoven or Moody Blues or Broadway tune they really like, I'm willing to experiment further.
At any rate, realistically, most pc files should be in MP3 for now.  At least, I expect, we can agree to avoid wma.  

Yes, mp3 is the standard - unfortunately. It is very commercial and heavily patented format, and I think we should prefer Ogg over mp3, just because Ogg is open and free. Besides, I wouldn't think Ogg loses to mp3 even with the higher bitrates, although I haven't tested much. However, the fact is, that mp3 doesn't exactly shine at that level, either. If you don't trust Ogg, then use mpc, because it is undeniably the best encoder with high bitrates. It's also free, tho not open source.

Mp3 has also other downsides, like bad handling of transients (sharp impulses, drumbeats, percussions etc.) and the bad encoders, that many not so knowledgable people unsuspectingly use.

So I for one will surely not support mp3, since there are better ones around. The fact that mp3 is the standard, doesn't affect my personal music listening much. I will always rip my music to either Ogg or mpc, and encourage other people to do likewise .

Also I must add, that Ogg's popularity is growing all the time. Even now, most of the new games seem to be using Ogg, mainly because it's free, but of course because it sounds good too. I'm sure mp3 will eventually go down. How long it takes, I'm not so sure about.

[Philidor11]

I'd never heard of mpc before tonight, but I ran into a reference on a link in a prior message that said mpc was best at high bit rates.  So I downloaded the mpc encoder and MPC batch encoder.
For the test I selected the Tchaikovsky Rococo Variations, great performance by Rostropovich (never heard a bad performance by Rostropovich) and von Karajan on DG.  Anyway, ripped to wav with CDex.  I also downloaded the XMPlay plug-in for mpc.
The wav was 207 megs.  Using CDex again, I converted to mp3 with LAME.  18:54, 24.6 megs, VBR 160-224, came out at 182.  I used MP3-Gain.  Nothing comparable that I know of for mpc.  The normalization blats in a few spots because I merged the wav using Wave Merge (sic); should have used MP3 Gain first, with the album setting.
Anyway, then I converted the wav to mpc using the xtreme setting for comparability, came to 28.4 megs, 20:34(?), and listened to both.  The MP3 wins easily, a lot richer; the mpc seems muted by comparison.
Admittedly, the difference may have been because of MP3 Gain or because of the plug-in.  But that's the point; you can get quality software for MP3.
Sometime I'll check Ogg on the same wav, but MP3 is still champ, for me.  I know what you mean about free, but I didn't pay for any of this software anyway, so to me it seems equivalent.
Interesting stuff.

[Torkell]

FYI: The Unreal series of games used to use a packaged MOD format (UMX) for music, but the latest version (UT2k3, and probably Unreal 2) use OGGs.

Having many different formats of music file on my computer, I've come to the conclusion that a lossless compression for MO3 is the best, with OGG if the source is not available in MOD format. I'm planning on converting all my MODs to MO3, using the lossless compression as it can halve the filesize at the best quality setting.

[Zarggg]

Ogg does it for me. I used to use the --r3mix switch for MP3 encoding (which produces massive, archive-quality encoding). Now, I use 128 for my nominal in Ogg. Both sound good enough for me (I'm not broadcasting anything... Yet), and I never use a nominal higher than 128. I don't really need it.

[Pike84]

The MP3 wins easily, a lot richer; the mpc seems muted by comparison.

I don't know how you managed to hear mp3 better, but there's a considerable flaw in this test of yours: instead of comparing these formats to each other, you should have compared them to the original (in this case a cd, wasn't it?). It doesn't matter if mp3 sounds any "richer" or whatever - if it sounds different from the original, it's flawed. I suggest you do another test like this, and then report, which one of the formats sounds closer to the original.

As for my experiences, I just ripped a couple of cds, then packed them to mpc, with the standard setting. I can't hear the difference from the originals .

[Zarggg]

FYI: The Unreal series of games used to use a packaged MOD format (UMX) for music, but the latest version (UT2k3, and probably Unreal 2) use OGGs.

UMX is actually a form of Impulse Tracker, IIRC.

[Philidor11]

I was confirming the statement that mpc was the best format for high bitrate (lossy) rips.  May have been true at one time, but one admittedly quick test didn't support it.  Particularly with the helper software now available for mp3.
As for comparison to the original, I think a ripped CD sounds better than the original, particularly with a player like XMPlay.  This isn't the same result I'd get with dedicated sound equipment, just concerns listening at the computer.
Agreed?

[Brightguy]

BoggyB was right when he predicted there could be an audio codec war...  I guess I would have to say I'm neutral.

By the way...

Olego: I don't like the name no, but it was amongst the first ever so I can give it some leeway there. The followers are the worst, like LAME, yes. That won't stop me from using LAME though

Ten thousandth post on the Un4seen forums!!!

[Tsorovan]

Well, I can't really see the point in not switching the formats, if it's clear that one format (Ogg/mpc) beats another (mp3).

As I said, the (current) improvements are negligible and not worth due to compability issues (friends and other people not having OGG/MPC-capable players for instance -- yeah it's their fault but it becomes your problem).

There may not be point in changing all your music to the new format, but why not support it in future? I for one make sure that I'm ripping with the best quality-size -ratio (by the way, why are you using CBR and not VBR/ABR?).

Re-encoding a lossless format will NEVER happen for me.

I use CBR because it feels more reliable, I don't like the added uncertainty factor that VBR adds, and as I'm a quality freak, when I tested with VBR, most frame sizes stayed at the CBR level I'm using anyway. ABR is total crap and shouldn't be allowed to exist.

Hmm, I don't know if I see your point here.. Do you mean that they aren't popular or supported? For an individual using XMPlay with the plugin, it shouldn't be an issue.

I mean the improvements are more or less negligible (i.e. "the codecs aren't there yet -- in the future when everything's wonderful and perfect"). OGG isn't really that much smaller size-wise. At crappy, low bitrates yes. But I don't use those ear-killing bitrates. It has other merits though, like license-free and multichannel, but none of that is anything I care about -- yet.

It all boils down to wheter the improvements reach such a level that it's worth all the hassle. Simple.

------
 
Oh, AFAIK, UMX is the original file, which can be XM, S3M, IT, FAR, MOD and some other, more obscure formats, inside an Unreal Package file.
However, it was impossible to have several mods inside that package, so it might've just been a custom header added to the original file, I never had to work much with the Package format myself (or it could've been a limitation in UnrealED/UCC, but that seems weird).

[Philidor11]

Tsorovan wrote:

As I said, the (current) improvements are negligible and not worth due to compability issues (friends and other people not having OGG/MPC-capable players for instance -- yeah it's their fault but it becomes your problem).

Yes, mp3 is the standard.

He also wrote:

I use CBR because it feels more reliable, I don't like the added uncertainty factor that VBR adds, and as I'm a quality freak, when I tested with VBR, most frame sizes stayed at the CBR level I'm using anyway. ABR is total crap and shouldn't be allowed to exist.

If I remember correctly, I think you said you're using 256 CBR.  Does every part of the music require that level?
mpc is entirely VBR.  Watching it play, I saw how much the BR jumped around.  If you went from a 224 low and topped at 256 or even 320, couldn't you save file size with VBR?  Have you tried it?
My equipment doesn't allow me to hear much better than I get from a 160-224 VBR on the pc, and I do save on file size.

[Pike84]

As for comparison to the original, I think a ripped CD sounds better than the original, particularly with a player like XMPlay.  This isn't the same result I'd get with dedicated sound equipment, just concerns listening at the computer.
Agreed?

That's interesting, that you find the original not sounding as good.. so are you using the same equipment for playing the CDs and the rips? And did you manage to find out, which of the formats (mpc, mp3) sounded closer to the original?

As I said, the (current) improvements are negligible and not worth due to compability issues (friends and other people not having OGG/MPC-capable players for instance -- yeah it's their fault but it becomes your problem).

Ok, understood. For me, however, there are no issues at all, since I only rip for myself. Even if I had to transfer/transport some of my music to a friend that hasn't the compatible software, I'd just tell him/her to get XMPlay .

Re-encoding a lossless format will NEVER happen for me.

Hmm, not sure what you're pointing at with that.

I use CBR because it feels more reliable, I don't like the added uncertainty factor that VBR adds, and as I'm a quality freak, when I tested with VBR, most frame sizes stayed at the CBR level I'm using anyway. ABR is total crap and shouldn't be allowed to exist.

Well, I'm no expert, but I've gotten the idea that both VBR and ABR beat CBR, because they can allocate the bits more efficiently. Could you explain, why you think ABR is total crap?

I mean the improvements are more or less negligible (i.e. "the codecs aren't there yet -- in the future when everything's wonderful and perfect"). OGG isn't really that much smaller size-wise. At crappy, low bitrates yes. But I don't use those ear-killing bitrates. It has other merits though, like license-free and multichannel, but none of that is anything I care about -- yet.

It all boils down to wheter the improvements reach such a level that it's worth all the hassle. Simple.

Nothing much to add here - just that I'm not experiencing any hassle whatsoever myself. But I guess it's all individual and stuff .

[guest]

What about MPEG-4 AAC?

[Tsorovan]

Regarding ABR/VBR as opposed to CBR: in my testing, the space conserving with VBR vs CBR was barely significant. I chose many different types of song material to get as good spread as possible. Sure, I used pretty aggressive quality settings, but I would rather err on the side of caution than well, that other side. After all, 2.00 MB vs. 1.75 MB  per minute... Moreover, VBR decoding is slightly more CPU intensive (albeit in the end by an almost insignificant amount if I'm to be truthful). I maintain it's impossible to hear the difference between 256 CBR (LAME) and an original CD source, and every scientifically carried out blind test I've come across seems to indicate this is so, even on very expensive audiophool gear, so higher frame size than 256 wouldn't be much use IMO.

As I said before, I don't like the uncertainty factor that VBR adds; the more variables you have, the easier a screw-up would be. Hey, that's some really bad grammar, am I turning into George Lucas?

Regarding ABR: the reason for its craptasticalness is the fact that you beforehand must know the dynamic of the music and calculate what bitrate would suffice, and if you're wrong...well, too bad for you, you won't have much bits left in the bits pool towards the end. Or, if your encoder is smart enough, it'll just not allocate enough bitrate for the highbitrate-craving passages throughout the whole song, to keep the ABR rate at check.

Guest: if you've been following the AAC comments lately, you'll see that it has some serious artefact problems. If that's due to the file format or just crap encoders...well, that remains to be seen.
But hey, look, if Apple chose the format, then it must be inferior. :D

[Zarggg]

But hey, look, if Apple chose the format, then it must be inferior.

*smacks Tsorovan on principle* :evil:

[Pike84]

Tsorovan:

Well, in your case it might not matter a lot, since you use so high quality anyway. The alt-presets in LAME 3.90 have been well tested, however, and probably wouldn't screw up anything.

If you're happy with encoding your music to 256kbps mp3s, that's just fine. But I sure don't want to waste my precious hd space like that, if I can get virtully the same (better?) quality with mpcs of around 170-200kbps .

[Torkell]

What flameware?

I would've posted but my flamethrower's out of fuel

[Tsorovan]

Kynes: Yeah. You're totally free to do that, and I understand it. I wasn't even disagreeing much I think...actually I don't even remember why the topic strayed this much. :D

[Pike84]

Hehe.. this was supposed to be about the misspelling of 'colour', but that discussion ended on the second page of the topic :laugh:.

This topic probably doesn't need any more posts .

[Brightguy]

This is all very interesting (but off-topic)...
And kind of pointless, because I doubt either side will convince the other to switch.

[DanaPaul]

Yes, both interesting and relative to your own personal environment, eh? To Wit: file share. (gasp! did he really say that?)

Frankly, ...and to paraphrase one of the major players in the development of a mojor online service provider, and akin to the Internet... file share is a mile wide and one inch deep. A huge majority of the files out there have very poor compression quality, background noise, and snap-crackle-pop.  On the other hand, files compressed from my own CD's on this machine have superior quality that very few files floating around the Net can equal.  

I stand with proponents of Ogg Vorbis. Relatively speaking, MP3 can't come close to the quality of Ogg Vorbis for my expansive CD collection parked on my hard drive.  My environment will be a better place when quality and useful applications, like my favorite MusicMatch Jukebox, empowers (me) consumers with available options.

Finally, to paraphrase former President Clinton, I may have downloaded an MP3 or two, but I didn't listen.

My 2 Cents