Welcome to Doom9's Forum, THE in-place to be for everyone interested in DVD conversion.

Before you start posting please read the forum rules. By posting to this forum you agree to abide by the rules.

 

Go Back   Doom9's Forum > Capturing and Editing Video > New and alternative a/v containers

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 5th August 2020, 20:42   #1  |  Link
Elias
Be Brave!
 
Elias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,101
Musepack support in Matroska/MKVToolNix please?

I was trying to mux a Musepack encoded audio track into Matroska today, and noticed that it didn't work. So I googled and found these posts in an old MKVToolNix thread, but I'm starting a new thread about this issue, because we need to discuss this separately and properly instead of bumping and drowning it an old thread, because this is actually an important topic.

Anyway, Musepack is a great lossy audio codec that has sort of been left behind because everyone went along with the MPEG-4 craze.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vlada View Post
Hello,
it's been probably discussed before, but I couldn't find any information about support for Musepack (MPC) in Matroska/MKVToolnix. Is it planned? AFAIK MPC is very similiar to MP2 so I hope it shouldn't be difficult to support it.

Thank you,
Vlada

P.S. Btw. I tried to search the forums for post regarding MKVToolnix and Musepack. One of my result was the original MKVToolnix thread, which has 50 pages. Is there a way to find out on which page of the thread is my search result located?
^^ This post was posted back in 2005. That's ridiculous. It's one thing that MKVToolNix didn't support Musepack back then, but it's been 15 years of time to include Musepack support. Mkvmerge and Musepack developers should fix support for Musepack in MKVToolNix. Musepack is a great codec and keeping it left behind like this ain't cool.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mosu View Post
The problem with Musepack is that it cannot be split into separate blocks in its current form. All other audio formats that Matroska supports can be split into such blocks. The Musepack author (and others?) wanted to correct this in the next bitstream version, but that never came.

Conclusion: won't happen unless there's a new release of Musepack with an easy-to-handle bitstream layout.



Not really
Again, a post from 2005. SV8 has been released since then. Someone over at the official Musepack forum back in 2010, started a thread about this, basically saying that you didn't care about Musepack (and it looks like you still don't):

Quote:
Originally Posted by Antonski
Recently I had a chat with the (main) developer of mkvtoolnix, Moritz Bunkus.
As he frankly admitted, "the decision not to work on Musepack
is mostly due to lack of interest on my part ... and due to my lack of arbitrary
amounts of free time".
He is not against Musepack in Matroska in general, though. He said "I'd be very happy to accept proper patches that implement support for Musepack in mkvtoolnix if someone else wrote them".
Needless to say that my coding skills are not enough for such work, otherwise I wouldn't open this topic.
But maybe some of you, guys is experienced enough to implement at least a minimal support in mkvmerge?
https://forum.musepack.net/showthread.php?t=628

Why screw over a great audio codec like that? MKVToolNix is a great software application, and some of us don't want to use AAC, Vorbis or Opus.

Anyway, the lead developer of Musepack commented on these patches:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shy
Your thread title may make people think that's an official stance. Matroska is an open source project and one developer can't be expected to implement support for everything himself, even though that's usually the case, especially in audio/video related projects. I don't know anyone with enough interest in Matroska as well as free time to do this, but I'll see. In any case, if any of you developers could spend some time on this, I'm sure it would be much appreciated.
https://forum.musepack.net/showpost....41&postcount=2

So a few patches for Musepack support in Matroska, shouldn't be such an impossible mission. And again, SV8 has been released since then, so this should no longer be a separate blocks issue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Liisachan View Post
Hi, from what I heard, Musepack SV8 is going to be supported in Matroska. (SV=Stream Version=Internal Format)
The current mppenc is 1.15u, and 1.16 is going to be the final version for SV7, and then the devs will work for SV8 (or perhaps SV7.5)

Why not SV7? - Because the original author of MPC doesn't want to. I don't know why.

As another note, Wavpack will be supported sooner or later, maybe sooner.



That's my question too.

Edit: I meant Musepack by MPC here, not Media Player Classic. (Just in case someone was confused)
Also a post from 2005. SV8 has been released since then, so what's the issue now?

On a side note, sup Liisa, long time no see
__________________

Last edited by Elias; 8th August 2020 at 04:11.
Elias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th August 2020, 00:37   #2  |  Link
Blue_MiSfit
Derek Prestegard IRL
 
Blue_MiSfit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,991
Just out of curiosity, Is there a single commercial product using Musepack?

Sounds like you're a fan of it - also out of curiosity what makes it interesting / useful to you?
Blue_MiSfit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th August 2020, 16:08   #3  |  Link
filler56789
SuperVirus
 
filler56789's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Antarctic Japan
Posts: 1,357
Quote:
Musepack support in Matroska/MKVToolNix please?
As long as Musepack itself keeps being NOT-Matroska-friendly,
that's not going to happen.

Below is a text that I pasted onto the "talk page" of the media containers article at Wikipedia:

Well, I don't like what they did with last packet - you can't distinguish it from full packet and it does not contain padding data. That's why their decoder tracks the number of samples and that probably will create troubles for other containers since seeking should update number of decoded samples for decoder.
It would be nice if someone told them it's wrong to do that way.

( source: http://lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/...ch/064439.html )
filler56789 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th August 2020, 23:14   #4  |  Link
ShyK
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 5
There's nothing wrong about how Musepack handles start and end packets, it's essential for gapless playback (a dreaded long-standing problem with lossy audio formats), which other lossy audio formats often fail at. Musepack has by far the best gapless playback handling among lossy audio formats.
If anyone thinks that someone "not liking it" is a good enough reason not to support Musepack, good luck with that. He was wrong a decade ago, and he's still wrong. Matroska would have no problem supporting Musepack, and I still have no idea why he was talking about "other containers".

There are many commercial software products that support Musepack, and some hardware products. Not to mention ReplayGain, which was supported by Musepack first, natively, and APEv2 tags, developed for Musepack. If you like your commercial hardware products only supporting one or two non-proprietary, open, music-suitable audio formats (like Vorbis, Opus), what can I say? During about 18 years, I've seen countless people dismissing our high quality open format, supporting exclusively proprietary formats, and sometimes pushing obviously inferior alternatives instead. Now in 2020 I think I can say that we've had discussions with Monty (Vorbis etc. developer, good guy), who of course acknowledged Vorbis's vastly inferior transient handling (has always been widely known) and other problems, and we shared ideas. The fact is that eventually, whether your (loved and appreciated by many) open format will be supported or not has almost nothing to do with technical issues. Matroska could have supported Musepack SV8 13 years ago. Also, we have never been approached by any Matroska developer except once, after which a slight misunderstanding was quickly explained.

Last edited by ShyK; 7th August 2020 at 03:40.
ShyK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th August 2020, 05:09   #5  |  Link
filler56789
SuperVirus
 
filler56789's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Antarctic Japan
Posts: 1,357
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShyK View Post
There's nothing wrong about how Musepack handles start and end packets, it's essential for gapless playback (a dreaded long-standing problem with lossy audio formats), which other lossy audio formats often fail at. Musepack has by far the best gapless playback handling among lossy audio formats.
If anyone thinks that someone "not liking it" is a good enough reason not to support Musepack, good luck with that. He was wrong a decade ago, and he's still wrong. Matroska would have no problem supporting Musepack, and I still have no idea why he was talking about "other containers".

There are many commercial software products that support Musepack, and some hardware products. Not to mention ReplayGain, which was supported by Musepack first, natively, and APEv2 tags, developed for Musepack. If you like your commercial hardware products only supporting one or two non-proprietary, open, music-suitable audio formats (like Vorbis, Opus), what can I say? During about 18 years, I've seen countless people dismissing our high quality open format, supporting exclusively proprietary formats, and sometimes pushing obviously inferior alternatives instead. Now in 2020 I think I can say that we've had discussions with Monty (Vorbis etc. developer, good guy), who of course acknowledged Vorbis's vastly inferior transient handling (has always been widely known) and other problems, and we shared ideas. The fact is that eventually, whether your (loved and appreciated by many) open format will be supported or not has almost nothing to do with technical issues. Matroska could have supported Musepack SV8 13 years ago. Also, we have never been approached by any Matroska developer except once, after which a slight misunderstanding was quickly explained.
Since I am no digital audio expert, and no container expert as well,
maybe you're right, after all :-/

Anyway: I don't think "gapless playback" should be the main goal (or among the main goals) of an audio format, but if their creator thinks it should, well, good luck at convincing other people to store their audio format in containers that are not «audio-only»...
Again, just my stupid opinion of course :-/

One thing that I cannot like about Opus is the fact it was designed for the Ogg container, and as everybody already knows, Ogg is very-sucky and totally-evil. Still, one could "find ways" to make Opus compatible-with /accepted-by Matroska, MP4 and TS...
{{thinking face emoji}}
filler56789 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th August 2020, 05:33   #6  |  Link
ShyK
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 5
Quote:
Originally Posted by filler56789 View Post
Since I am no digital audio expert, and no container expert as well,
maybe you're right, after all :-/

Anyway: I don't think "gapless playback" should be the main goal (or among the main goals) of an audio format,
Of course it's not. It's just yet another feature that makes it a great lossy audio format. Sample-accurate seeking is another example, as well as sample-accurate cutting. Try that with some other lossy audio formats...

Last edited by ShyK; 7th August 2020 at 05:37.
ShyK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th August 2020, 04:09   #7  |  Link
Elias
Be Brave!
 
Elias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue_MiSfit View Post
Just out of curiosity, Is there a single commercial product using Musepack?
Who cares? How is this an actual argument? I mean, since when did we here at Doom9 implement support for and use codecs that have commercial usage? As far back as I can remember, and I've been posting on Doom9 since 2004, this was always a forum mainly focused on open source codecs, because developers here could tinker with the codecs and improve them (like you know, XviD development). Of course proprietary codecs and players have also been used here (a good example would be Nero Digital's MPEG-4 codecs), but clearly most forum members here have focused on open source codecs. Hell, Matroska and MKVToolNix are open source too.

I honestly don't get it, that it's still not possible to mux Musepack into Matroska in 2020. And I can't believe you're actually arguing against Musepack support in Matroska. I mean, can you give me one valid reason why it would be a bad idea for Matroska to support Musepack?

Anyway, to answer your question, there are plenty of software products that support Musepack, at least if you by commercial mean proprietary closed source, and of course also open source software products:

A list of applications that support Musepack:
https://musepack.net/index.php?pg=pro

I still don't understand how this is a valid argument to exclude Musepack from Matroska though. Please elaborate since when, why and how codec support in Matroska should be based on usage in commercial software products? Matroska itself isn't a commercial product, lol. Musepack is a high quality open source audio codec, and that alone should be the single criteria for inclusion in Matroska. Nothing else really matters as far as I'm concerned.

Besides, we need alternatives and some diversity to the few lossy audio codecs Matroska supports. Matroska can only become better by supporting Musepack. Fewer alternatives clearly wasn't a good thing last I checked.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue_MiSfit View Post
Sounds like you're a fan of it
Not really a fan; I just recognize quality when I see and hear it, and Musepack is a damn smart audio codec. Sure, at lower bitrates Musepack is clearly inferior to AAC, Opus and probably also Vorbis, but who in this day and age encodes music at below 128 kbit/s? We have much faster connections and way larger hard drives today than we did back in 2005. If anything it's sort of pointless to use lossy audio codecs today, but that doesn't mean Musepack should be excluded from Matroska. Personally I'd rather use Musepack in Matroska than AAC.

Now, at 170+ kbit/s and around 200+ kbit/s, Musepack is clearly number one among lossy audio codecs, and gives pretty much transparent audio quality indistinguishable from lossless to most if not all ears, and I'll challenge any "audiophile" to hear a difference between a 200+ kbit/s Musepack encoded song from the lossless source. There are multiple reasons for this, and one of the reasons is that Musepack is based on mp2, and because of this, unlike newer codecs, Musepack doesn't destroy audio information to the same extent as low bitrate optimized codecs such as AAC and Opus do. Or something like that; I'm not a codec developer but this is the impression I've gotten from reading up on Musepack over at Hydrogenaudio and so on. Either way, I personally can't hear the difference between high bitrate Musepack and lossless.

And anyway, it's not just me who's a "fan" of Musepack, check out this thread:

Just discovered this old gem of a codec.
https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php?topic=117174.0

^^ Musepack is great stuff.

But that's not really why I like Musepack. The main reason I like it is because it's open source GPL, whereas Vorbis and Opus are licensed under BSD, and AAC is technically proprietary/patented (but still sort of allowed under open source development for non-commercial use). Also, all Opus files are upmixed to 48kHz, which is retarded.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue_MiSfit View Post
also out of curiosity what makes it interesting / useful to you?
Great quality and GPL licensed. It's also not a mainstream audio codec and that's always a plus in my book.

Look, if Musepack was a proprietary or heavily patented codec, sure, I could understand the reluctance to include support for Musepack in Matroska. But right now, nothing is in the way from adding Musepack support in Matroska.

Quote:
Originally Posted by filler56789 View Post
As long as Musepack itself keeps being NOT-Matroska-friendly,
that's not going to happen.
In what way is Musepack not Matroska friendly? Keep in mind that it's Matroska that's excluding Musepack here, even though, you know, we're not talking about a million lines of code to add Musepack support in Matroska.

Quote:
Originally Posted by filler56789 View Post
Below is a text that I pasted onto the "talk page" of the media containers article at Wikipedia:

Well, I don't like what they did with last packet - you can't distinguish it from full packet and it does not contain padding data. That's why their decoder tracks the number of samples and that probably will create troubles for other containers since seeking should update number of decoded samples for decoder.
It would be nice if someone told them it's wrong to do that way.

( source: http://lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/...ch/064439.html )
This isn't really saying me anything. Matroska has support for all sorts of audio and video codecs that are a lot more complicated than Musepack. Besides, Matroska supports mp2, and that's not far off from Musepack. Musepack is basically just a heavily optimized/modified version of mp2.

Quote:
Originally Posted by filler56789 View Post
One thing that I cannot like about Opus is the fact it was designed for the Ogg container, and as everybody already knows, Ogg is very-sucky and totally-evil. Still, one could "find ways" to make Opus compatible-with /accepted-by Matroska, MP4 and TS...
{{thinking face emoji}}
Yeah I never liked Ogg either (what a silly name for a container), and Vorbis as an audio codec? I'd rather use AAC. In what way is Ogg evil though? It's just a crappy container, but please fill me in on the details here; I haven't been active in codecs discussions for years now, so I'm sure I've missed out on a lot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShyK View Post
There's nothing wrong about how Musepack handles start and end packets, it's essential for gapless playback (a dreaded long-standing problem with lossy audio formats), which other lossy audio formats often fail at. Musepack has by far the best gapless playback handling among lossy audio formats.
If anyone thinks that someone "not liking it" is a good enough reason not to support Musepack, good luck with that. He was wrong a decade ago, and he's still wrong. Matroska would have no problem supporting Musepack, and I still have no idea why he was talking about "other containers".

There are many commercial software products that support Musepack, and some hardware products. Not to mention ReplayGain, which was supported by Musepack first, natively, and APEv2 tags, developed for Musepack. If you like your commercial hardware products only supporting one or two non-proprietary, open, music-suitable audio formats (like Vorbis, Opus), what can I say? During about 18 years, I've seen countless people dismissing our high quality open format, supporting exclusively proprietary formats, and sometimes pushing obviously inferior alternatives instead. Now in 2020 I think I can say that we've had discussions with Monty (Vorbis etc. developer, good guy), who of course acknowledged Vorbis's vastly inferior transient handling (has always been widely known) and other problems, and we shared ideas. The fact is that eventually, whether your (loved and appreciated by many) open format will be supported or not has almost nothing to do with technical issues. Matroska could have supported Musepack SV8 13 years ago. Also, we have never been approached by any Matroska developer except once, after which a slight misunderstanding was quickly explained.
I don't think people here at Doom9 give ShyK and other Musepack developers enough credit for maintaining Musepack. Seriously. Musepack is a great audio codec that has been left behind because everyone here (and I'll admit I'm guilty of this too) was like obsessed with MPEG-4 back in the days (and yeah it's great that MPEG-4 is an ISO standard and all; an advantage that Musepack doesn't have, but that doesn't really matter as long as Musepack is an open source format). Back when I used to be really active here, I never saw anyone mention anything about Musepack; I probably did, but it was so rare that I must have forgotten it quickly if I ever saw the name Musepack.

Anyway look, Musepack really is a great lossy audio codec, and that's not "fan" me saying it; that's just what Musepack is. Shy and others have put in a lot of hard work on Musepack, and I for one think their contribution to lossy audio quality shouldn't be squandered, and instead given recognition. The least the open source codec community can do is to add a few necessary patches in MKVToolNix and Matroska, so that we can finally start using Musepack in Matroska. At some point in the future, everyone is going to be using lossless audio codecs anyway, especially the day we get DNA hard drives (huge storage). But even so, lossy audio codecs will probably always be in use, especially for online streaming where a lot of bandwidth can be saved by using lossy audio codecs instead of FLAC (no one can really hear the audio quality difference between FLAC and Musepack at high enough bitrates, but a lot of bandwidth will be saved with Musepack). Personally I think it was a mistake of Google to use Opus in WebM instead of Musepack, but I'm not Google.
__________________

Last edited by Elias; 8th August 2020 at 04:30.
Elias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th August 2020, 07:00   #8  |  Link
nevcairiel
Registered Developer
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Hamburg/Germany
Posts: 10,360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elias View Post
Keep in mind that it's Matroska that's excluding Musepack here, even though, you know, we're not talking about a million lines of code to add Musepack support in Matroska.
Did noone even read the latest quoted statement from Mosu on that? You even quoted it yourself (indirectly, mind you, but still). He never excluded Musepack, he just doesn't want to do the work himself, which is fine, he can't be asked to do all the work. Instead he specifically welcomes a contribution to integrate it properly. But noone of the Musepack supporters did the work either, so you only got yourself to blame.

All I read here is assigning blame to "the open source community", but if you want something done, do it, don't complain that noone else did it. Thats how this entire community works, everyone works on what they are personally interested in or find an interesting task.
__________________
LAV Filters - open source ffmpeg based media splitter and decoders

Last edited by nevcairiel; 8th August 2020 at 07:04.
nevcairiel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th August 2020, 07:01   #9  |  Link
Audionut
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,281
In my experience, threads like this don't encourage developers.

The developer is willing to support the implementation. That's why he asks for proper patches.

He is not willing to do all of the work, but is willing to maintain it, if someone else shows interest and submits a proper patch.
A patch isn't the be all and end all. The codebase supporting musepack will still need to be maintained. And guess who will be left to maintain said code....

edit: It's far easier for a developer to filter threads like this out of his life, then to do what is requested.
__________________
http://www.7-zip.org/
Audionut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th August 2020, 16:46   #10  |  Link
Emulgator
Big Bit Savings Now !
 
Emulgator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: close to the wall
Posts: 1,591
Good to hear about Musepack in any case.

Hearing of a .mp2 relative
(which I found useful until Dolby used their influence to wipe .mp2 off from the list of DVD-Video compulsory audio codecs)
I would herewith encourage any support by an open container like .mkv/.mka

Others and me may be using more .mkv. and mka (besides .m2ts) if these can hold all nuts & nails, dirt & dust, gases & liquids.
__________________
"To bypass shortcuts and find suffering...is called QUALity" (Die toten Augen von Friedrichshain)
"Data reduction ? Yep, Sir. We're that issue working on. Synce invntoin uf lingöage..."
Emulgator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st August 2020, 21:41   #11  |  Link
Mosu
MKVToolNix author
 
Mosu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Braunschweig, Germany
Posts: 4,287
Quote:
Originally Posted by filler56789 View Post
Still, one could "find ways" to make Opus compatible-with /accepted-by Matroska, MP4 and TS...
No need to "find ways" for Opus in Matroska; Opus is officially supported by both Matroska and WebM. MKVToolNix can handle it just fine.
__________________
Latest MKVToolNix is v85.0

If I ever ask you to upload something, please use my file server.
Mosu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st August 2020, 21:52   #12  |  Link
Mosu
MKVToolNix author
 
Mosu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Braunschweig, Germany
Posts: 4,287
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elias View Post
I honestly don't get it, that it's still not possible to mux Musepack into Matroska in 2020.
The explanation is really simple: no one has cared enough to spend the time to implement it. It seems obvious to me that the people with the skills & the time to code up such a thing aren't interested in Musepack, and the people interested in Musepack lack the time or the skills or the interest in Matroska to do it themselves.

From my point of view nothing's changed. I still don't care about Musepack. MKVToolNix already supports a wide range of both lossless and lossy audio codecs (including a lot of completely free ones such as Opus, Vorbis, FLAC, WavPack, TTA). It's not like there isn't much choice.

That being said, I'd still be happy to have Matroska support Musepack, and I'd still be perfectly happy to accept patches to the MKVToolNix source code that implement muxing & extracting of Musepack audio. Note, though, that I have to insist that the Matroska specification be updated first (that's some more work that would have to be done by those writing the patches; I can give pointers how to get started with proposing updates to the specification).

Personally I have more than enough stuff on my plate to work on: from things users have requested time and again (support for HDR & 3D video), that actually really matter to the industry (supporting the upcoming VVC codec), things that matter to me personally and that actually make Matroska more versatile (support for BCP-47 style language tags) and general maintenance & bug fixes, just to name a few.

What you're writing and the way you're writing it, you're coming across as rather angry and entitled. To paraphrase: "Why doesn't anyone else do the work?", "why does no one implement the things that I care about?", "why is everyone so mean to my beloved pet project?", "why are you such bad human beings?". Using words like "retarded" is also a pretty much turn-off in my book. The way you write is really not helping you make your case, you know. We're not your personal genies in a bottle.
__________________
Latest MKVToolNix is v85.0

If I ever ask you to upload something, please use my file server.
Mosu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd December 2023, 19:01   #13  |  Link
Bigjackaal48
Registered User
 
Bigjackaal48's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2023
Posts: 3
Quote:
Originally Posted by elias View Post

not really a fan; i just recognize quality when i see and hear it, and musepack is a damn smart audio codec. Sure, at lower bitrates musepack is clearly inferior to aac, opus and probably also vorbis, but who in this day and age encodes music at below 128 kbit/s? We have much faster connections and way larger hard drives today than we did back in 2005. If anything it's sort of pointless to use lossy audio codecs today, but that doesn't mean musepack should be excluded from matroska. Personally i'd rather use musepack in matroska than aac.

Now, at 170+ kbit/s and around 200+ kbit/s, musepack is clearly number one among lossy audio codecs, and gives pretty much transparent audio quality indistinguishable from lossless to most if not all ears, and i'll challenge any "audiophile" to hear a difference between a 200+ kbit/s musepack encoded song from the lossless source. There are multiple reasons for this, and one of the reasons is that musepack is based on mp2, and because of this, unlike newer codecs, musepack doesn't destroy audio information to the same extent as low bitrate optimized codecs such as aac and opus do. Or something like that; i'm not a codec developer but this is the impression i've gotten from reading up on musepack over at hydrogenaudio and so on. Either way, i personally can't hear the difference between high bitrate musepack and lossless.
I've never ran into killer samples with Musepack at Q5 & Q6 at all, It a godsend for people that listen to Electronic and Noise rich music. Meanwhile with AAC & Vorbis there samples(mainly Electronic) that fail even at 320kbps VBR, It seems like Hydrogen-Audio had one of there golden ear posters go insane because he tried claiming Electronic is not music and lashed out when I noticed LAME MP3 at V2 ~ V0 does a lot better despite being most flawed codec wise. These days Musepack pretty much has the same universal support as MP3 since all music software for android/PC play It no issue.
Bigjackaal48 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

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:25.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.