Yep (I cant believe I have never told someone that they could do that)! Path: EAC >> Compression Options >> Parameter passing scheme [select "MPC encoder"] Now choose your bit-rate. I recommend standard or extreme. Heres a help page about [bold]MPC encoder[/bold] command line arguments and EAC: http://www.musepack.net/index.php?pg=enc Ced
Ced I have a question for you. If I decide to get an iPod should I rip my entire collection to MP4/AAC. And also what does iTunes create MPEG-2 Advanced Audio Coding or MPEG-4 Advanced Audio Coding.
As to not contadict myself I will stick to recommending Mp4 (AAC). But I will also say that if you already have ripped your collection to Mp3 you have no reason to do it all over again in Mp4 (As the iPod is fully compatible with LAME-Mp3). Apples AAC audio format was choosen as the basis for the MPEG-4 audio layer (MPEG-4, Part 3). So, iTunes creates Unprotected-Mp4 (.m4a) files and sells Protected-Mp4 (.m4p) files. MPEG-4 (Part 3): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4a Apple's AAC page: http://www.apple.com/quicktime/technologies/aac/ Ced
I do not think any of you have attempted mp3pro at max vbr. It is outstanding quality! It is about 25% smaller than standard mp3 vbr. Try it in nero and be amazed! I never use mp3pro 64k or whatever as it is crap. I like mp4 as i can use them on my K750i and file sizes are even smaller - tho i havent tried at max quality like mp3pro as yet. A 24min song off Dream Theaters latest album compressed to 10Mb with mp4 through nero - though i did select its default. Do not slag off mp3pro until you have tried max vbr and quality. Trust me - NO standard mp3 recording comes close!!! If you do not believe it try it!
I don't care about filesize, with terabytes of storage these days a few percentages smaller file size really isn't that appealing. The real concern is quality, and while your opinion may be positive, I played around with mp3pro a while ago when it came out and it was crap. There's a reason its not widespread and why no one uses it. but if you like it then go with it
I made a similar claim about how storage (and internet speeds) are slowly fasing lossy codecs out. With that said, I find Mp3Pro to be intresting because it is fairly popular (I don't like but, eh whatever floats your boat ). Since alot of people arn't hard-boiled audiophiles or (at-least) quality freaks (like myself) I think lossy formats will always have a niche. That niche would be the, I like to listen to music while I run and jog but don't what to spend allot of money to be able do so, casual audio listening crowed. I'm mean who the hell would actually buy an iPod Shuffle (512 MB) if they worried about quality? Codecs like Mp3Pro (and HE-AAC) are good alternatives for people like them, Ced
Sorry to say but mp3pro max vbr trashes most codecs of the lossy variety. I am something of an audiophile as i have a stupendous separate hi-fi system but NO computer system can express to that quality anyway so it is laughable to say mp3pro vbr is crap if you do not do a true test over time. I think it is a great codec but a dead one. mp4 is the way to go as it is even better, but no doubt even lossier by comparison. Nothing beats proper uncompressed audio of course, and when 10mb lines symmettric become standard, then we can share true cd quality.
True words markdvd! True words indeed. I havn't been able to test Mp3Pro ar high VBR rates yet tho. Have you tried MPC (A.K.A. Musepack)? @ saurabh, No the iPod dosn't use a Mp3Pro based decoder. If you play an Mp3Pro file on an iPod it will be like playing an Mp3 file (if it plays at all!). For that matter I don't know of any portable audio player that supports Mp3Pro! --LATER-- @ saurabh, I ment that HE-AAC would be a good alternative for people with iPods (since HE-AAC is AAC + SBR), like Mp3Pro (Mp3 + SBR) is good for people with Mp3Pro portable devices. Ced
Thompson and a couple of others support mp3pro. Mp3pro WILL play but you will not get it as good as true mp3pro playback. However, if it is ripped as top notch vbr the diff is hardly noticeable!
Music match? I don't enjoy musicmatch. Are there any other encoders for Mp3Pro besides Nero and MusicMatch? Mp3Pro is marketed as a great way to get near CD quality at very low bit-rates. Using it at Max VBR seems to nigate the originally intended uses for the codec. I havn't read any documentation that says Mp3Pro is better than Mp3 (LAME) at higher bit-rates. From what I've read, all Mp3Pro is, is Mp3 + Spectral Band Replication (SBR). Any attempts at bitrates above 96K would use just the standard Mp3 (ISO 11172-3 Layer 3) part and should be very comparable (and compatible) with current hardware. The files encoded using SBR are the ones that may or may not work (depending on the quality of the decoder in use). Meaning that older Mp3 players, players that didn't even conform to the original ISO Mp3 spec by 100%, may not work with an Mp3Pro file because it is so different. With that said, most Mp3 players won't have a problem playing the Mp3Pro files (as Mp3s). The Maximum bit-rate for Mp3Pro is 96 Kbps (stereo, CBR?). At what VBR bit-rate did yall encoded at (what is the max VBR bit-rate)? My sources: http://www.mp3prozone.com/basics.htm and http://www.mp3pro.com/ Ced
It hits up to 160KHz. Remember, mp3pro has not been tested independently at max vbr except on one site where it came out on quality right across the board. if you want to hear a top notch mp3pro i have encoded in music of your choice - let me know and i'll send you a sample. Then you can judge fairly. I have used loads of mp3 players for ages and they all play mp3pro.
Do you mean 160 Kbps? Thats where I get confussed. Mp3Pro is supposed to be used for low-bitrate applications (such as speech engineered audio codecs and internet streaming). VBR is bad for internet streaming and would have no possitive affects using a speech codec. Encoding anything above 96 Kbps would end the mathmatical gains using any type of SBR. Meaning that it would be pointless to do so since most compression formats can achieve high too very high quality at 128 K and above (using VBR schemes). Also what site has compared Mp3Pro at max VBR with other codecs? Did they also test AAC and/or MPC? How did the file sizes compare? I'm glad you have never had a bad Mp3 player experience (like some of the people hear have) but there where allot of cheap Mp3 players in the first gen round-up that only supported 128 K (CBR) correctly while VBR was skipped completelly to save some money. Ced
I can say for certain that most people cannot play them as they do not know in the main what they are doing! Download it off kazaaa and you are likely to get bad encodings whichs pcs whizz through and mp3 players can buckle at. All i am getting at is SOUND quality! mp3pro is the best of any codec ive heard at max vbr tho mp4 at highest quality will do better but it gives ridiculous filesizes. Try me and see - tell me one song to test encode at all the codecs u suggest and i'll do it. Fair is fair - you have asked - and I'll give in to this as it is a fair question.
Thats cool. I just wanted to know what web site you where reffering too. Also have you ever tried MPC, or Mp4-AAC, or HE-AAC? I think MPC is the best audio codec around. I have seen MPC do some amazing things including, encode the fastes, sound the best, and have the smallest file size. I have proved it myself. Mp3Pro would have to impress me allot to dethrone MPC in my book. I will say that Mp3Pro (using the WinAMP plug-in) did sound mighty impressive. I used the Thompson encoder demo, which only encodes at 64K (which is supposed to be equal to 128K ISO Mp3). It sounded terrible but it was excellent in comparission to regular Mp3 at 64K. What encoder do you use for Mp3Pro encoding, Nero or Musicmatch? --LATER-- I decided to do some comparissons. First I used Mp3 at 22KHz then Mp3Pro. Lastly I created a file at Mp3 CD quality. I used dMC as my ripper and encoder. I used the LAME CLI and its Thompson based Mp3Pro CLI. I used Jet Audio 6 for playback. The song of choice is "Lost in Hollywood" by System Of A Down. I ripped the track from a CD image. CD emulation was done via Daemon Tools. I used EncSpot to conferm the encoders used and versions as well as bit-rates and frequencies. I used my ears to test the sound quality (I'm not a sound proffesional, or gifted with "golden ears"). Results: MS Wave-PCM Bit-rate: 16 Bit (Fixed Resolution, Uncompressed) Sample rate: 44.1 KHz Rip/Encoding time: 9 sec File size: 53.9 MB Sound quality: The Benchmark (of course) LAME Mp3 v3.96 Bit-rate: 128 Kbps (CBR) Sample Rate: 44.1 KHz File size: 4.89 MB Rip/encoding time: 47 sec Sound quality: The best of the 3 LAME Mp3 v3.96 Bit-rate: 128 Kbps (CBR) Sample rate: 22 KHz File size: 4.89 MB Rip/Encoding time: 40 sec Sound quality: The Worst Thompson Mp3Pro v1.1 Bit-rate: 64 Kbps (CBR) Sample Rate: 22 KHz File size: 2.44 MB Rip/Encoding time: 45 sec Sound Quality: Better than LAME at 128 CBR and 22KHz! I am impressed with its ability to sound big without increasing sound artifacts (and at half the size!). I believe the adverage person wouldn't be able to tell the differnce between the two using a Mp3Pro based decoder. Ced
Hmm I shall have a look at them tonight, I shall use either a Dream Theater or a Stratovarius track. This debate is enjoyable makes a change from a slanging match! Finally somebody who knows what they are talking about wahey! Will post results later.
