- This topic has 16 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 5 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Subject says it all.
I’d like to use Breakaway/Edcast to supply a cable headend with our signal, and would like to do so using a 384kbps MPEG2 stream.
AAC is not possible and I’d rather use MPEG2 instead of MP3.
Here is are a couple of links I found for…
QDesign MPEG-2 Layer II Audio Codec for MSACM
…. if that is any use 🙄
code :http://ffdshow.faireal.net/mirror/tmp/qmpeg_mp2.zipor
code :http://esby.free.fr/CelticDruid/mirror/tmp/qmpeg_mp2.zipBB 8)
[quote author=”didac”]OK, but… Can edcast load a MSACM codec?[/quote]
My question too. Thank you. As far as I know I need a .dllI have a MP2enc.dll available from Db Poweramp. Haven’t got a clue if just adding it to the Edcast directory will work…
You need radiorio ask this or try en error this yourself.
The edcast client isn’t updated lately, due to some personal issues of the programmer.
[quote author=”Dj Buik”]The edcast client isn’t updated lately, due to some personal issues of the programmer.[/quote]
I’m sorry to hear that, hope it isn’t to serious…I still don’t get it, why mp2?
In some quick tests i just done, mp3(lame) at 320kbps is better then mp2 at 384kbps. So, why mp2?[quote author=”Boki”]I still don’t get it, why mp2?In some quick tests i just done, mp3(lame) at 320kbps is better then mp2 at 384kbps. So, why mp2?[/quote]
Your brain makes you believe 320 MP3 sounds better, after all it is not called a perceptual codec for nothing. But actually 384 MP3 is technically superior because it is less destructive. Therefore MP2 is more resistant to cascading algorithms than MP3. It’s hacking up the audio into 32 filters instead of 512. Going below 256kbps MP2 it will start to sound crappy pretty quick, but at higher bitrates, it can certainly take going through another codec.So: If you are absolutely sure no further transcoding is done and you are using uncompressed files as source, 320 MP3 is fine.
But if you, a cablecompany or some other distributer will throw some compression into the equation, 384 MP2 will provide a (much) better result in the end.[quote author=”radio oude stijl”]our brain makes you believe 320 MP3 sounds better, [/quote]
Even if that is true, isn’t that actually important? And not my brain, but brain from avarage listener.Quick test i’ve done is actually compressing 60Hz squere tone into mp3 (320) and mp2 (384).
For mp3 i used lame 3.93.1 and for mp2 i used some latest release from dbPoweramp.Results was way bigger overshots in mp2, almost 1dB more then mp3. Also line was more flat in mp3.
[quote author=”Boki”][quote author=”radio oude stijl”]our brain makes you believe 320 MP3 sounds better, [/quote]
Even if that is true, isn’t that actually important? [/quote]
No it’s not. Because an audioprocessor or other audiodevice doesn’t ‘think’. The whole perceptual part doesn’t work there…
It simply goes for what it is offered, which is audio with something missing. It can cause for example a ‘pumping’ sound of which you just might think is your AGC or multiband when in fact it could be caused by cascading or maybe even a lousy sourcefile.I’m not saying never use MP3, I’m just saying keep in mind MP3 is aimed at consumer-use…
Effectively, I prefer MP2 because:
1.- The compression artifacts are different, more "beautiful" than MP3 (the sound is more orbed/round).
2.- Is the standard of ALL DVB-T/S and STL Links because is the professional line.
3.- All reasons that have been appointed in this post.Sorry for my very very bad English, but is difficult explain a sound on another language than my native language.
[quote author=”didac”]Effectively, I prefer MP2 because:
1.- The compression artifacts are different, more "beautiful" than MP3 (the sound is more orbed/round).
2.- Is the standard of ALL DVB-T/S and STL Links because is the professional line.
3.- All reasons that have been appointed in this post.[/quote]1. Tests shows otherwise.
2. Are you really belive in that? There IS totally other reason why they usually don’t have Layer-III in those units. We already all agree that mp3 is ‘better’ on lower bitrates. So ask yourself why they still use Layer-II and not Layer-III.However, i still want to hear/see some obvious example where mp2(384) is better then mp3(320).
[quote author=”Boki”]However, i still want to hear/see some obvious example where mp2(384) is better then mp3(320).[/quote]
Several reasons are provided… More resistant to cascading and less destructive. But feel free to not agree.
Might I suggest you start googling and reading about datacompression and algorithms?
- The forum ‘Breakaway Professional Products – [discontinued]’ is closed to new topics and replies.