Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

> Hydrogenaudio Forum Rules

- No Warez. This includes warez links, cracks and/or requests for help in getting illegal software or copyrighted music tracks!

- No Spamming or Trolling on the boards, this includes useless posts, trying to only increase post count or trying to deliberately create a flame war.

- No Hateful or Disrespectful posts. This includes: bashing, name-calling or insults directed at a board member.

- Click here for complete Hydrogenaudio Terms of Service

7 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > »   
Closed TopicStart new topic
2008 ripping/encoding general poll
What are your current choices for your own musical library?
What's your *main lossy* format of choice?
MP3 [ 681 ] ** [56.19%]
Ogg Vorbis [ 214 ] ** [17.66%]
AAC (MP4, M4A, AAC) [ 197 ] ** [16.25%]
MPC [ 46 ] ** [3.80%]
WMA Standard or PRO [ 3 ] ** [0.25%]
Atrac (any version) [ 2 ] ** [0.17%]
WavPack lossy [ 8 ] ** [0.66%]
LossyWAV + lossless [ 6 ] ** [0.50%]
other lossy format [ 0 ] ** [0.00%]
I don't use lossy AT ALL! [ 55 ] ** [4.54%]
What's your *main lossless* format of choice?
FLAC [ 795 ] ** [65.59%]
WavPack [ 176 ] ** [14.52%]
Monkey's Audio [ 52 ] ** [4.29%]
WMA Lossless [ 4 ] ** [0.33%]
TAK [ 54 ] ** [4.46%]
OptimFrog [ 2 ] ** [0.17%]
other lossless format [ 40 ] ** [3.30%]
I don't use lossless AT ALL! [ 89 ] ** [7.34%]
What's your favorite ripping mode {for your main, archive or most important library if you have several ones}?
one file per track [ 911 ] ** [75.17%]
one file per disc with cuesheet or chapters [ 164 ] ** [13.53%]
it depends: I mix both [ 137 ] ** [11.30%]
Total Votes: 1309
post Jan 2 2008, 10:21
Post #26

Group: Members
Posts: 229
Joined: 29-December 03
From: Columbus, Ohio
Member No.: 10785

Well, last year is was AAC since I bought a Mac, but this year I'm re-ripping everything to MP3 since I built a new PC, and want to use my music with Media Center and such.

The AAC tag extenders just don't cut it for me.

As for lossless, OptimFrog, compression to the max!

This post has been edited by rudefyet: Jan 2 2008, 10:27
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
post Jan 2 2008, 10:46
Post #27

Group: Members
Posts: 2351
Joined: 28-August 02
Member No.: 3218

QUOTE (UED77 @ Jan 1 2008, 22:30) *
Once TAK will support seeking without seektables like WavPack, I'll consider a migration to that format.
What's the disadvantage of seektables (except for the additionally needed bytes)?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
post Jan 2 2008, 11:16
Post #28

Group: Members
Posts: 907
Joined: 9-February 02
From: Cheshire, UK
Member No.: 1296

Wavpack and MP3.

I too am very interested in TAK and may make the switch this year. I would switch to AAC but my car stereo doesn't currently support it (my phone does) and I have no reason to change it ... unless there is one with gapless AAC playback? smile.gif

Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Bruno Monteiro
post Jan 2 2008, 11:48
Post #29

Group: Members
Posts: 18
Joined: 12-December 06
Member No.: 38618

I voted for MP3, Wavpack and mixed settings (cue file for Wavpack and multiple files for MP3).
MP3 is the most compatible code with the software/hardware I use (VirtualDJ, PDA, my car's MP3 player) and Wavpack provides me a good storage option.
I use Lame --vbr-new -v 2 since I cannot ABX it from the original (I doubt I could even from -v 4 smile.gif ) and Wavpack -hh -x1 (more than x1 is SO overkill).
Have a great year, everybody!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
post Jan 2 2008, 12:18
Post #30

Group: Members
Posts: 96
Joined: 19-July 03
Member No.: 7866

Interesting poll, curious to see what everyone else is doing. Voted mp3 format for all. Have not gotten around to buying a large hd. So lossless is out of the question. Just bought a refurb Sansa e280 off ebay. May rockbox it so, I have a real reason to use other formats whistling.gif . Best wishes to all for a prosperous New Year. wink.gif


cast out...
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
post Jan 2 2008, 13:19
Post #31

Group: Members
Posts: 2425
Joined: 9-October 05
From: Dormagen, Germany
Member No.: 25015

lossyWav + FLAC is what matches my needs perfectly for listening purposes, Monkey for archiving purposes.

I am still interested in mp3
a) because of its universal usability
b) because at a bitrate of ~250 kbps on average (which more and more users can afford) I'm sure all my quality demands can be fulfilled by a hypothetic ideal encoder, and we do have encoders which come close to that (Lame 3.98b6 -V0, but Helix and FhG @CBR256 are real good as well, with each of them having specific strengths in the various problem areas).

My feelings are also with wavPack lossy which one day - with an added quality control - may outperform the lossyWAV/FLAC combination.

lame3100m -V1 --insane-factor 0.75
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
post Jan 3 2008, 00:33
Post #32

Group: Members
Posts: 1394
Joined: 20-December 01
From: seattle
Member No.: 693

mpc + flac + "mix of cue and tracks"

although i do use mp3 (lame) and wavpack - but not as much.


RareWares/Debian :: http://www.rarewares.org/debian.html
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
post Jan 3 2008, 00:47
Post #33

Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 713
Joined: 8-July 04
From: Sao Paulo
Member No.: 15173

Vorbis for new lossy encodes. All my devices support it and I am satisfied with it at 96kbps.

FLAC for new lossless encodes. I have a great deal of Wavpacks but now I choose FLAC simply because it decodes faster in my slow computer and I feel it is more widely accepted as the codec of choice for most people in the lossless scene. I do not intend to convert my Wavpacks to FLAC because I don't see the point.

One file per track for new rips because it is easier to manage and suits all my needs.

Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
post Jan 3 2008, 06:17
Post #34

Group: Members
Posts: 554
Joined: 18-January 04
From: bethlehem.pa.us
Member No.: 11318

Lossy: Ogg Vorbis, though I use AAC for transferring to my portable (if I ever get around to loading Rockbox, it will be Ogg Vorbis 100%)

Lossless: WavPack. TAK isn't quite as robust as I would like yet (nor does it have the player support I need), but I'll be watching it as new versions come out.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
post Jan 3 2008, 07:05
Post #35

Group: Members
Posts: 52
Joined: 2-January 08
Member No.: 50051

my cd's are ripped to FLAC via CDex, then run thru a ReplayGain scan via foobar2000 for my lossless archive...

for my lossy library (which goes straight to my iPod) I use Nero AAC @ q0.425 and use foobar2000's Converter to run the transcoding, with a pre-conversion +1dB boost. this puts the average bitrate of my lossy library between 128-129kbps, which for me is a good balance between quality and filesize. I've never had any playback issues, and I'm more than satisfied with Nero AAC's performance at this quality level...

This post has been edited by jmcguckin: Jan 3 2008, 07:05

Archive- FLAC (-v 8)
Portable- QuickTime AAC (True VBR/-q 77)
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
post Jan 3 2008, 07:24
Post #36

Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10000
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167

QUOTE (Zarggg @ Jan 2 2008, 21:17) *
TAK isn't quite as robust as I would like yet...

Please explain what you mean. Do you have any evidence to back this claim?

Concern trolls: not a myth.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
post Jan 3 2008, 08:46
Post #37

Group: Members
Posts: 49
Joined: 10-July 05
Member No.: 23253

MP3 (LAME), only because my lady is content with her iPod the way it is, she doesn't want me to Rockbox it (yet.) Otherwise, I would much prefer lossyWAV+FLAC or Ogg Vorbis.
Damn you Apple for not supporting Free codecs.

FLAC, more support than TAK and fast enough.

One track per file, why not? Keeps things simple. If I really need a hard copy (very rarely) no one I know can hear gaps in Burrrned CD's.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
post Jan 3 2008, 11:21
Post #38

Group: Members
Posts: 1213
Joined: 6-September 04
Member No.: 16817

MP3 (LAME) for lossy just because of compatibility.
FLAC for archiving and on my server for the Squeezebox since storage space isn't a problem smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
post Jan 3 2008, 12:20
Post #39

Group: Members
Posts: 53
Joined: 19-September 06
From: Trondheim
Member No.: 35393

I voted OGG for lossy, but most of my lossy files are in Atrac3plus 64 kbs. (I use mostly Sony players.) The OGGs are for my Pocket PC. I might switch to HE-AACv2 as soon as Pocket Player supports it.

I voted Wavpack for lossless. But actually most of my archives are nrg images. I use Wavpack only for my LP rips, since it is fast, efficient, and stores the cues set in Adobe Audition. (Flac and Monkeys Audio loose the cues.) I might rip the images to Wavpack to save space later on.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
post Jan 3 2008, 15:52
Post #40

Group: Members
Posts: 381
Joined: 27-September 03
Member No.: 9041

lame 3.97 -V 0 --vbr-new, till i get a new hd (preferably 750gb minimum), then I'll just copy over my flac backups.

Sega Saturn, Shiro!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
post Jan 3 2008, 16:18
Post #41

Group: Members
Posts: 921
Joined: 22-October 01
From: the Netherlands
Member No.: 335

Here we are asked for our main codecs of choice. So I chose the ones I prefer at the moment.

In my case I use Musepack (mpc) and LAME (mp3) for lossy encodes.

For lossless I try more codecs as the differences are only in the CPU load and compression ratio, not sound quality. In the last year FLAC has catched up compression wise and the speed is good too, but I'm using WavPack and TAK too.

LossyWav (with FLAC but maybe also with WavPack) is also something I'm looking into, kind of in between traditional lossy and lossless.

This post has been edited by GeSomeone: Jan 3 2008, 16:19
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
post Jan 3 2008, 19:10
Post #42

Group: Members
Posts: 41
Joined: 12-February 06
Member No.: 27709

QUOTE (Squeller @ Jan 2 2008, 04:46) *
QUOTE (UED77 @ Jan 1 2008, 22:30) *
Once TAK will support seeking without seektables like WavPack, I'll consider a migration to that format.
What's the disadvantage of seektables (except for the additionally needed bytes)?

Upon transcoding my lossless collection, I'd prefer to do it with foobar2000, with pipe encoding. TAK currently uses a default seek table size of 8 minutes which isn't suitable for all of my music, given how with longer track lengths, seek accuracy decreases. (Info taken from TBeck). WavPack handles this with seekpoints in the stream, and is thus much more preferable to me. TBeck stated the TAK bitstream also has such a capability, and I'll wait for this functionality to be introduced before I transcode to TAK.

wavpack 4.50 -hx3; lame 3.97 -V4 --vbr-new
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
post Jan 3 2008, 20:12
Post #43

Group: Members
Posts: 59
Joined: 9-July 04
Member No.: 15236

For lossless, TAK all the way. Compresses better than Flac and much faster than other formats when getting those kinds of compression ratios. The only thing that slowed me down at all in jumping onto this format was waiting for it to work in Foobar.

For lossy they're primarily aimed for use on my Rockboxed Sansa E260, which after playing around with several formats I eventually settled on Vorbis at Q1 (~80 kbps). MPC is lightning fast for decoding so I'm thinking should yield better battery life, but I was a bit leary of using it at the bitrates I was aiming for. Same goes for mp3. That left me waffling between Vorbis and AAC, and eventually Vorbis won out.

One track per song, it's worked fine for me for a decade of music on the PC, I've no need to change my ways in this respect. YMMV

This post has been edited by joeshrubbery: Jan 3 2008, 20:20
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
post Jan 3 2008, 20:59
Post #44

Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10000
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167

QUOTE (joeshrubbery @ Jan 3 2008, 11:12) *
For lossless, TAK all the way. Compresses better than Flac and much faster than other formats when getting those kinds of compression ratios.

TAK does not compress faster than Monkey's Audio at similar ratios. If you you look at Synthetic Soul's Lossless Codec Comparison nothing compresses faster than Monkey's Audio at similar ratios. Decompression speed is an entirely different story.

Concern trolls: not a myth.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Sebastian Mares
post Jan 3 2008, 21:36
Post #45

Group: Members
Posts: 3629
Joined: 14-May 03
From: Bad Herrenalb
Member No.: 6613

I rip one file per track using dBpowerAMP. I then convert the WAV to FLAC and WMA Lossless. Finally, I import the WMA Lossless to my iTunes library and convert to AAC before I eventually delete the WMA files. The extra step with WMA Lossless is only in order to preserve tag information. I might switch to Nero AAC soon, though. I didn't check how gapless that is combined with an iPod Touch.

Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
post Jan 3 2008, 22:06
Post #46

Group: Members
Posts: 142
Joined: 16-August 05
From: Portland, Oregon
Member No.: 23924

Since giving up on Windows, my choices are fewer but quite satisfying.

* iTunes or Max encoding to AAC for lossy (usually 128kbps VBR). I rarely use Max because iTunes generally works perfectly.
* Apple Lossless for, well, lossless. Plays in all my stuff, supports all the iTunes tags, etc. Plays well with others.

We still have one Windows box in the house, but we just let the kids play with it. The change away from Microsoft has been refreshing and productive and I find that I don't miss EAC/FB2k one bit. Everything works and sounds just great.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
post Jan 3 2008, 22:27
Post #47

Group: Members
Posts: 3353
Joined: 6-July 03
From: Sachsen (DE)
Member No.: 7609

Its interesting to see the stats so far reflecting, that once a codec reaches a certain feature-set and "good enough" compression-efficiency, its all about hardware and software support. The ability to transfer music between a high amount of devices and use them as casette-tapes were used in the past (nearly everywhere) has a huge impact. Take AAC for example... above 128kbit, it doest really perceptually offer a big advantage over mp3...... just because of iTunes, iPod and a number of other devices, it is now gaining quite a bit of usage.

That opens up interesting questions for developers of codecs - if ones primary interest is usage-share, then would one be better advised to write plugins and tools for the codec, once it became "good enough" feature-wise? If yes, then that would mean that codec devs also need to be application-devs if they want they codec to be successful.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Marky Mark
post Jan 4 2008, 01:40
Post #48

Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 30-October 07
Member No.: 48345

Largely based on what I've learned from Hydrogenaudio, my votes are:

-MP3 (thanks to the LAME developers)
-FLAC (thanks to Josh)
-One file per track (I use folder configurations for artist/album organization (God bless foobar), and single files for tracks seem to work well for compatability purposes)

The first album I ever owned was Thriller on LP...no mp3 or FLAC. Don't let that void my vote please. biggrin.gif

-Marky Mark
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
post Jan 4 2008, 17:09
Post #49

Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 29-October 07
From: UK
Member No.: 48290

  • Lossy - I use AAC. It's compatible with all my hardware, and I can push the bit rates lower to save more space.
  • Loseloss - I use FLAC. I've used it since the beginning, it's a solid format.
  • One file per CD - For organisational purposes.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
post Jan 4 2008, 19:38
Post #50

Group: Members
Posts: 105
Joined: 22-February 06
From: France
Member No.: 27984

Lossy: MP3 V0
Lossless: FLAC
One file per track

Et bonne année guru et les autres ! wink.gif

This post has been edited by apul: Jan 4 2008, 19:38
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

7 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > » 
Closed TopicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:


RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 23rd August 2014 - 06:36