Musepack Forums  

Go Back   Musepack Forums > Main > General

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 18 May 2005, 12:19 pm   #1
bbommarito
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1
Default Best Quality Setting? / Best CD Ripper?

Okay, let me start this off by saying that I do in fact use Windows...make things easier for the post

Now, here's the thing, I am slowly building my jukebox system. Basically, it's gonna run on a small computer (Shuttle probably) and get hooked directly into my stereo through AV inputs. I'm not concerned about having a portable player for my music (Kind of a waste of time, IMHO) and so Musepack does sound very interesting. So, I have two questions:

First, since I will be eventually doing a direct to stereo hookup, what would be the best quality to encode a Musepack file to? (I am totally lost with the quality settings, too used to MP3s)

Secondly, with my having said that I use Windows, what's a good tool to rip/encode the file to get me the best quality? No need to give me a tutorial, just a point to a program to do it, and I can figure it out the rest of the way.
bbommarito is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18 May 2005, 02:01 pm   #2
Shy
Admin
 
Shy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 372
Default

I renamed your post from "A Couple of Quick Questions" to "Best Quality Setting? / Best CD Ripper?". Please try to make your titles suitable.

There is no "best quality" to encode to because it depends on the material you encode, on your ears and what your demands are. Often entire albums will sound exactly the same as the originals with the --standard or --xtreme settings. In some cases, in some parts you may notice a difference that the --insane quality would usually fix. In rare cases where even --insane doesn't sound identical, --braindead or higher may not either, regardless of higher bitrate.
The best overall quality to encode to if you require the very best transparency without a too high bitrate is --insane.
But keep in mind that you really should try to hear for yourself and not listen blindly to anyone. Not everyone has very good hearing and some people would prefer to compromise a few fractions of the audio, that you may often not notice under normal listening conditions, to get a lower bitrate.

As for best ripper, Exact Audio Copy has the most advanced error detection/correction and includes detailed logging and things like the ability to read a track for testing and then reading it to disk and getting a CRC for each read for further assurance of accuracy. EAC is sometimes not 100% accurate either, but it's more accurate than others. We provide a short guide for configuring EAC to encode MPCs.
Links to more programs are on our site.
Shy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27 March 2006, 12:17 pm   #3
Anaqim
Guest
 
Anaqim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Norway
Posts: 2
Default

I know the thread is old but nevertheless i strongly suggest you try and listen yourself before you make a decision on the quality.

If you are anything like me who think that Lame APS sounds good then perhaps you will find that --standard will more than cover your needs.

I am not able to hear any difference between --standard and original in the way i listen to music. Maybe, just maybe I could hear something if I would do a listening test and really look for the "mistakes". But thats so far away from how i listen to music so it means nothing to me.

I've read that in any case, --standard is better than any MP3 encoding sinpmly because its a very well tuned sub-band encoder.

It was created to be "perfect" 99.9% of the times and thats more than good enough for me.

I love the space saver --standard gives me over other settings and formats so i can recommend it strongly and i honestly feel that people sometimes tend to "talk it down" a bit just because its named --standard.

Which audio lover would publically claim to be music lover and yet say that a "standard" preset sounds excellent when it exist other presets with fancy names like "xtreme", "insane" and "braindead" ? :-)

Oh and just to stir up some lossless fuzz...whats the point to have such spacegobblers when MPC does it just as well? If i'd want to use uncompressed material i'd just listen to the CDs as they are. MPC is a no brainer to me but lossless is a big popularized question mark

Trust your own ears!
Anaqim is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Quality Settings, Predefined Settings incaseof General 6 13 May 2006 12:27 pm
MPC Quality presets audible difference? gerardobaez General 1 13 August 2005 01:24 am
How to re-encode mpc files at reduced quality? drmrbrewer General 6 31 July 2005 07:28 pm
--extreme setting with CDEX -> error Apocalypse Dude General 2 31 May 2005 08:00 pm
Quality Presets (Was: Really stupid question) MechaTama31 General 2 05 December 2004 01:19 pm


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:36 am.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 2
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.