ultimate lossy compression
Nov 17, 2008 at 8:00 PM Thread Starter Post #1 of 12

andyshedd

Head-Fier
Joined
Jun 29, 2004
Posts
98
Likes
0
Location
Portland, ME USA
Just a warning... i won't be checking back on replies to this one frequently. I just wanted to share my recent experience with compression formats. I had some cds that sounded a bit harsh; i.e. causing aural fatigue when listening to them. I tried converting them to mpc using foobar2000 using the 275 kbs Q8 and the converted files actually caused LESS fatigue than the original uncompressed cd, no fatigue at all actually. I had a similar experience using Musicmatch jukebox which uses the Fraunhofer codec. I compressed at 320 kbs and the sound was less fatiguing than the original, but just a hair less so than the mpc. For those that are interested in trying Musicmatch it's available at megadownload [dot] net. Yahoo Jukebox also is very impressive using the 320 kbs/Archive quality setting. It's available at softpedia [dot] com, but only for a limited time; Yahoo is in the process of ending support for it.
 
Nov 17, 2008 at 9:34 PM Post #2 of 12

krmathis

Head-Fi's Most Prolific Poster
Joined
Jan 13, 2004
Posts
34,764
Likes
76
Yeah, Musepack were one of the higher regarded lossy audio codecs some years back (3-5 I think). So obviously they did something right. Too bad the development ceased and hence people lost interest.

Enjoy!
smile.gif
 
Nov 18, 2008 at 1:37 AM Post #3 of 12

Vitor Machado

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Posts
285
Likes
12
I don't know, if you hear this difference, even if it feels better, I believe this means something noticeable was lost...
Maybe the frequencies that were harsh in your original recording, were suppressed a little in the encoding, and you got this feeling it sounds less fatiguing, but it was actually a loss.

Of course it's just a supposition, I never really used Musepack so I can't say.

One lossy format I like is OGG.
wink.gif
 
Nov 18, 2008 at 3:06 AM Post #4 of 12

leveller1642

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
Dec 10, 2005
Posts
638
Likes
14
I am very happy with AAC. I really cannot tell the difference between AAC 192 and lossless. That said, I'd say my middle aged hearing is pretty crappy. I believe I can tell the difference between AAC 125 and AAC 192 though.
 
Nov 18, 2008 at 8:56 AM Post #5 of 12

krmathis

Head-Fi's Most Prolific Poster
Joined
Jan 13, 2004
Posts
34,764
Likes
76
Quote:

Originally Posted by Vitor Machado /img/forum/go_quote.gif
One lossy format I like is OGG.
wink.gif



You probably mean Ogg Vorbis.
wink_face.gif

Where Vorbis are the codec, and Ogg are the container format.

Yeah, that's a great lossy audio codec. So are MP3 (using LAME) and AAC.
 
Nov 18, 2008 at 12:30 PM Post #7 of 12

Shoewreck

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
Sep 11, 2005
Posts
681
Likes
43
Location
St Petersburg
Quote:

Originally Posted by Vitor Machado /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I don't know, if you hear this difference, even if it feels better, I believe this means something noticeable was lost...
Maybe the frequencies that were harsh in your original recording, were suppressed a little in the encoding, and you got this feeling it sounds less fatiguing, but it was actually a loss.

Of course it's just a supposition, I never really used Musepack so I can't say.

One lossy format I like is OGG.
wink.gif



Every analog part in the chain is lossy. When we choose the best sounding components we choose what we want to lose. If a compression format helps achieving the same goal - why not choose the format that loses a bit but adds some pleasant smoothness to the sound?

As for me, I prefer lossless formats. Probably because my system is smooth enough or I just like it that way.
 
Nov 19, 2008 at 4:45 PM Post #10 of 12

satshanti

Head-Fier
Joined
Jun 16, 2008
Posts
86
Likes
12
I use lossless when I have the space for it. In fact I recently changed from FLAC to TAK, a relatively new codec that with its fastest setting beats flac on decompression speed, something I needed in order to avoid overloading the VST bridge I use in Foobar.

I once did a day-long marathon lossless listening test, using a variety of tracks and formats. OGG (Vorbis) came first and MP3 second. The Ogg 500 kbps Q10 setting comes very, very close to a lossless file (using on average 800 kbps). The 350 kbps Q9 setting is much, much better than the 320 kbps lame MP3, and the 250 kbps Q8 is way better than for instance V0 VBR Mp3 to my ears. Still, sometimes you just can't get around MP3 and it's not bad.

For some reason I didn't like MPC at all. It felt too ... constricted, hard to describe.
 
Nov 19, 2008 at 4:46 PM Post #11 of 12

majkel

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Jun 1, 2007
Posts
2,783
Likes
56
for mp3 - use Fraunhofer @ 320kb/s The easiest test is to rip the "Kind of Blue" album by Miles Davies and hear like all the magic dissappeared in LAME compression.
for ogg Vorbis - use the aoTuV encoder, Lancer optimized for your PC capabilities SSE, SSE2 or SSE3. It's sound quality is better than regular Vorbis, too. Q10 is indistinguishable from lossless, and I use it with my iRiver E10. Pure joy.
mpc - was never better than ogg Vorbis, maybe less power hungry on playback but that's it. The main disadvantage of the Musepack has been the lack of fast search (FF/RWD) capability. Guys promised to add this in the next generation, so unless they've given in, we should wait.
 
Nov 19, 2008 at 5:57 PM Post #12 of 12

[L]es

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Oct 1, 2004
Posts
311
Likes
10
used to use mpc then moved on to vorbis aotuv...

now i just use mp3 at anything equal to or higher than v1.

lame has improved quite a lot since then or i just stopped caring less and less about minute differences in format and more about compatibility and also did hardware tweaks instead.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top