[Sisyphos]

I'm using the latest mpc encoder v1.15 through foobar2k to encode my music to mpc files.
Will there be any audible difference when using the same encoder through i.e. EAC or other software?

 

[scottder]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sisyphos I'm using the latest mpc encoder v1.15 through foobar2k to encode my music to mpc files. Will there be any audible difference when using the same encoder through i.e. EAC or other software?

Main advantage of using EAC is it protects more against errors (say from scratched CDs), it will be a slower but more reliable results, reguardless of the final codec, though MPC is supposed to be really nice, especially at higher bitrates (which it is tuned for).

 

[kunwar]

Really speaking there is no point to encoding in MPC anymore what with the advances in storage technology.
A DVD can easily hold top quality FLAC rips of about 10-2 CD's which is pretty good. It is almost like saving 10-12 CD's of low quality mp3's about 5-6 years back.
So I advise you to stick with FLAC for better quality and very good support base.

Cheers
Kunwar

 

[pbirkett]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kunwar Really speaking there is no point to encoding in MPC anymore what with the advances in storage technology.

I disagree. MPC is far, far superior to MP3 and I can not tell any difference between my MPC rips and originals, on any equipment. I agree that for archiving purposes FLAC will be better for peace of mind, but MPC for local storage definitely makes sense IMHO, as your disk space goes a LOT further. Not everyone wants to waste dozens of gigabytes more than they have to.

 

[kunwar]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pbirkett I disagree. MPC is far, far superior to MP3 and I can not tell any difference between my MPC rips and originals, on any equipment. I agree that for archiving purposes FLAC will be better for peace of mind, but MPC for local storage definitely makes sense IMHO, as your disk space goes a LOT further. Not everyone wants to waste dozens of gigabytes more than they have to.

There is no doubt at all that MPC is the finest lossy format but today one can easily fit close to 100 albums on a 40GB HDD in lossless format. I don't think that anyone would really listen to that many albums at the same time.

Then again it is a personal choice.
SO yeah It is in the ears of the beholder.
To me, I can still tell the difference between FLAC and MPC so FLAC is my choice.

As far as the question of MPC encoding is concened, I would say that EAC is the best as far as error free ripping is concerned.

 

[scottder]

He wasn't really asking about the merits of the codec, but weather ther was a clear advantage to using EAC over foobar for encoding. EAC will shine when there are issues with the disc (sometimes even light scratcing can cause encoding issues). but foobar will encode them faster.

Scott

 

[pbirkett]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kunwar To me, I can still tell the difference between FLAC and MPC so FLAC is my choice.

Congratulations. You have 1 in 1000 capability of hearing ability. I am glad I dont have such great hearing

 

[kunwar]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pbirkett Congratulations. You have 1 in 1000 capability of hearing ability. I am glad I dont have such great hearing

Thanks very much.

 

[Sisyphos]

Thanks for your advice so far.

format issue:
As my laptop's HDD is only 30GB and my CD-collection is about 500CDs, it is already difficult enough for me to decide which I want to have for travel and so I will stick with MPC and use FLAC only for my favourite discs.
And I have to admit that I wasn't able to tell the difference between MPC at quality 7 and FLAC as I ran several AB-comparisons through foobar.

ripping issue:
Do I understand this right?: If no errors occur on the MPC files that were ripped with foobar (most of my discs are very clean and free of scratches) there is no need for EAC.
It's really convenient to use foobar not only for playback but for conversion too. So I will only go for EAC if (the discs being as clean as they are) I miss sound quality.

 

[minya]

Quote:

Originally Posted by scottder He wasn't really asking about the merits of the codec, but weather ther was a clear advantage to using EAC over foobar for encoding. EAC will shine when there are issues with the disc (sometimes even light scratcing can cause encoding issues). but foobar will encode them faster. Scott

You're misunderstanding.

There is no difference whatsoever between using EAC and foobar to encode files. Either way, the MPC .dll or .exe or whatever it is that encodes .wav files into Musepack format is put into play -- and it's the same regardless of whether EAC or Foobar calls for it.

What you're doing, Scott, is making the assumption that Foobar can rip CDs. I don't think it can, but I haven't updated in a while, so maybe this feature was added in a recent build? If it was, then yes, you definitely should use EAC as opposed to Foobar to rip your CDs (in Secure Mode). However, if you choose to have EAC encode them after ripping -- or if you choose to wait and encode a directory full of .wavs all at once in Foobar -- makes no difference.

To clarify, there's two steps involved in the "encoding" process, no matter into which format you wish to encode:

1) Ripping audio off a CD into a resulting .wav PCM file. This is done best by EAC. I don't think Foobar even has this capability, but perhaps it does now.

2) Encoding said .wav PCM files into whatever format you choose -- MPC, in this case. You can do this within EAC, within Foobar, or even with the Monkey's Audio front-end program. Whichever you choose, the result is the same because all three programs (EAC, Foobar, Monkey's) are just acting as a "controller" for the MPC encoder .dll to do its job. Of course, differences arise in the way that these "controller" programs can tag the resulting files -- Foobar probably wins in this respect.

- Chris

 

[Sisyphos]

I' actually using foobar2000 version 0.8.2 which is the latest stable version. And if you have installed the necessary plug-ins it is possible to directly convert from a CD to whatever format you like, i.e. MPC, Vorbis, FLAC or WAV. It is not required to convert to WAV first.
So back to my original question: Are there any differencies in the acievable sound quality by doing this with EAC instead of foobar?

Thanks!

 

[pbirkett]

There should not be any difference using EAC and Foobar to encode files. EAC is only needed for the RIPPING process. Once they are ripped, you can do whatever you like, and if they are done right, it should sound the same, as long as you use the same codecs.

If you are using Foobar to rip however (I wasnt aware it could, but there you go), then I'd imagine there might be a small improvement to be had by using EAC to do this.

 

[Mr.Radar]

FB2k's CD reader plugin is optimized for real-time playback and error correction while EAC's ripping engine is designed for maximum sound quality and the highest error correction.

 

[scottder]

Actually using Diskwriter one can rips CDs, it's worked for quite a while. As I said the main advantage of EAC is accuracy and error correction. But I've had very good results with foobar as well (on CDs in good condition).

Scott

 

[Skarecrow]

There is still a need for lossy audio. Sharing FLACs with friends just doesn't work too well, especially when someone is on a dialup, or upload is capped. My portable (rio karma) plays FLACs, but I don't have a single one on it. Through my koss KSC-50s, I can't hear any difference between Ogg Vorbis -q6 and FLAC, so I use vorbis. I also use vorbis -q 6 (or -q 3 for the bandwidth limited) for introducting friends to new bands... I always seem to be the one to find the odd-but-cool stuff. Oggdrop + my extensive FLAC collection is just so handy. Heh.

Btw, yes, I CAN hear the difference (and ABX it too) between Vorbis -q6 and FLAC, but it's damn hard. I have not tried ABXing MPC... but considering my portable doesn't support it, and I have more than enough space on my HD for FLACs... it's just about a dead format to me personally as far as personal use goes... along with AAC/MP4 and MP3.

As far as ripping goes, I personally won't let any ripper except EAC anywhere near my CDs.