IPB

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

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >  
Closed TopicStart new topic
Codec choice poll
Codec choice poll
Codec choice poll
MPC [ 218 ] ** [29.95%]
AAC [ 54 ] ** [7.42%]
MP3 (Lame) [ 209 ] ** [28.71%]
MP3 (Fhg) [ 5 ] ** [0.69%]
OGG Vorbis [ 167 ] ** [22.94%]
VQF [ 3 ] ** [0.41%]
WMA [ 3 ] ** [0.41%]
Lossless (APE, LPAC, CDDA) [ 69 ] ** [9.48%]
Total Votes: 905
  
bladeraptor
post Oct 25 2001, 23:34
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 21
Joined: 11-October 01
Member No.: 270



Why not turn the "which code do you use" thread into a poll covering a range of formats? Who on the board uses: a.) MPC b.) AAC c.) MP3 (Lame) d.) MP3 (FHG) e.) OGG f.) VQF g.) WMA for archiving Most of your music is encoded in: a.) MPC b.) AAC c.) MP3 (Lame) d.) MP3 (FHG) e.) OGG f.) VQF g.) WMA You reckon the best encoder for everyday use is: a.) MPC b.) AAC c.) MP3 (Lame) d.) MP3 (FHG) e.) OGG f.) VQF g.) WMA or something like that?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dibrom
post Oct 25 2001, 23:47
Post #2


Founder


Group: Admin
Posts: 2958
Joined: 26-August 02
From: Nottingham, UK
Member No.: 1



Something weird must have happened to this thread when it was validated originally for use on the main page. I'm not quite sure what happened, but I had to reconstruct the poll from scratch by manually inserting the values back into the database. Sorry about this.. I hope I got it all correct. If not.. you know why smile.gif

I changed the question a little and added another option also.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
JohnMK
post Oct 25 2001, 23:55
Post #3





Group: Members
Posts: 90
Joined: 22-September 01
Member No.: 4



I still think you should add context to the question. It can be interpreted, currently, in too many ways for it to be a well valid survey. As it stands the results will be meaningful, but still somewhat vague in how one should interpret.

John
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
seaeye
post Oct 26 2001, 11:07
Post #4





Group: Members
Posts: 64
Joined: 3-October 01
Member No.: 181



.. and i still can't decide. mpc or lame mp3 ?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
RD
post Oct 26 2001, 11:46
Post #5





Group: Members
Posts: 151
Joined: 29-September 01
Member No.: 31



I would have voted for mpc but you asked
"Which format do you prefer for personal use?"

Since my Rockford Fosgate RFX9000 car cd player only plays mp3s/cdda...and since my rio volt only plays mp3s/cdda/wma and nothing else etc. and since i use these devices to listen to music on the way to work etc...

But if there were hardware mpc players...i'd switch in a second...

So unless "personal use" only means "in front of a computer" I really cannot see how anyone can choose most of the options given above (e.g., mpc, ogg, aac etc)...unless you always convert them to .wav and then burn them to audio cd but that's a pain, and is really not using mpc anymore but instead you are using cdda....
i also wonder why cdda was listed too since its not a compression scheme...

just some thoughts...

RD
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Nic
post Oct 26 2001, 13:58
Post #6





Group: Developer
Posts: 65
Joined: 23-September 01
Member No.: 11



Perhaps split the pole for Psytel & Liquid AAC? AAC encompasses quite a wide range in quality (like I know people that encode using FAAC!)

Just a thought smile.gif On a day to day basis I use Psytel

Cheers,
-Nic
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dibrom
post Oct 26 2001, 14:58
Post #7


Founder


Group: Admin
Posts: 2958
Joined: 26-August 02
From: Nottingham, UK
Member No.: 1



QUOTE
Originally posted by RD
i also wonder why cdda was listed too since its not a compression scheme...


Well the question doesn't actually say anything about compression itself biggrin.gif But the idea with CDDA was basically to imply any other lossless formats that I didn't mention (FLAC, Shorten, Squish, RKAU, Wavpack etc).

QUOTE
Originally posted by Nic
Perhaps split the pole for Psytel & Liquid AAC? AAC encompasses quite a wide range in quality (like I know people that encode using FAAC!)


Well to be honest, I shouldn't even have 2 mp3 options actually.. I removed Fhg for a few minutes awhile ago, but CiTay got all excited about it... rolleyes.gif (I think he just wants to see LAME beat Fhg in a public poll! biggrin.gif )
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
CiTay
post Oct 26 2001, 15:19
Post #8


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 2378
Joined: 22-September 01
Member No.: 3



:evilgrin:
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
bladeraptor
post Oct 26 2001, 15:49
Post #9





Group: Members
Posts: 21
Joined: 11-October 01
Member No.: 270



Yea I agree - maybe set up two other separate polls

The first asking about people's use of a format for archiving - when looking to preserve a CD or better quality original source - which encoder would people use personally or which format would they choose if they were (for some unknown reason) suddenly asked to advise the Library of Congress as to which format should be used to preserve important records for future generations :flipoff:

The second poll should probably ask about which format is used most often. I mean I use MPC and AAC when I am mixing and for archiving original CD or better quality source stuff - but to be honest the majority of my daily listening to web radio or local files is all MP3 :mad:

Regards

Bladeraptor
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Andriy
post Nov 21 2001, 22:12
Post #10





Group: Members
Posts: 1
Joined: 21-November 01
Member No.: 518



OGG the best.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Beatles
post Nov 21 2001, 22:24
Post #11





Group: Banned
Posts: 26
Joined: 8-November 01
Member No.: 422



I'll just wade into this little debate. I've been a recording engineer for 25 years and an audiophile for a bit longer than that with an extremely high end system. Currently testing Musepack, AAC and FAAC. At this point in time they are truly the only ones that would be in the running for discerning listeners. LAME unfortunately destroys the music to the point where it could not be used for any critical listening. Currently comparing using an Al Stewart track that I was present for the recording of so I know what it should sound like. If anyone's interested I'll let you know my findings once I'm done. I certainly wouldn't, at this early point, consider any of the formats suitable for archiving.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
NeoRenegade
post Dec 2 2001, 22:02
Post #12





Group: Members
Posts: 723
Joined: 29-November 01
Member No.: 563



I just love how FhG and WMA got 0 here. That's putting 'em in their place wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
JEN
post Sep 24 2002, 12:57
Post #13





Group: Banned
Posts: 1131
Joined: 19-September 02
Member No.: 3407



This is what I think of some of the codecs

MPC = best for high end encoding
OGG = best allrounder, best for lowend encoding
AAC = best 128-160k portable MP3/CD encoding
MP3 = ???

Does anyone else agree?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
David Nordin
post Sep 24 2002, 13:02
Post #14





Group: Members
Posts: 751
Joined: 1-October 01
From: Falkenberg
Member No.: 3810



I totally agree Jenny smile.gif
perhaps:
1 - MPC
2 - AAC

Hopefully we'll se portable SV8 MPC players in the future, then there are no more alternatives biggrin.gif


--------------------
http://davidnordin.wordpress.com/
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
westgroveg
post Sep 26 2002, 09:23
Post #15





Group: Members
Posts: 1236
Joined: 5-October 01
Member No.: 220



QUOTE (jenny @ Sep 24 2002 - 11:57 PM)
This is what I think of some of the codecs

MPC = best for high end encoding
OGG = best allrounder, best for lowend encoding
AAC = best 128-160k portable MP3/CD encoding
MP3 = ???

Does anyone else agree?

My 2 cents,

MPC= For Crazy Audiophiles, hardware support seems a mirage
OGG = Free, unpatend, lots of room to grow
AAC = Zero, expensive, highly panted, near vorbis technology/quality
MP3 = Popular, Best for lossy audio hardware support, acceptable quality
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
westgroveg
post Sep 26 2002, 09:30
Post #16





Group: Members
Posts: 1236
Joined: 5-October 01
Member No.: 220



QUOTE (NeoRenegade @ Dec 3 2001 - 09:02 AM)
I just love how FhG and WMA got 0 here. That's putting 'em in their place wink.gif

HEY, FHG is King, where would audio compression be without them?, nowhere & Fastenc an old encoder still kicks ass @128
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ChS
post Sep 26 2002, 10:25
Post #17





Group: Members
Posts: 247
Joined: 26-January 02
Member No.: 1172



Ok, someone voted for VQF. tongue.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Iceberg
post Sep 26 2002, 10:45
Post #18





Group: Members
Posts: 25
Joined: 17-March 02
From: Valencia, Spain
Member No.: 1548



I'm in the middle of encoding most of my CD-collection with Lame -aps, so Lame MP3 is my codec of choice for listening. My main "interest" is being able to play the songs on my iRiver 250, so I need the best MP3 codec available smile.gif

But... I want to begin playing around with OGG, just in case our Korean friends at iRiver release a new firmware supporting OGG smile.gif

And if iRiver didn't have space enough in their 8 Mb upgradeable flash memory, I'm sure I could live without the WMA/ASF codecs wink.gif They could offer two firmwares:

1) MP3/OGG
2) MP3/WMA

If anyone wanted to use WMA, they aren't really prepared to use OGG happy.gif

Best wishes from Valencia (by the Mediterranean Sea in Spain / España)...
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Mac
post Sep 26 2002, 11:03
Post #19





Group: Members
Posts: 650
Joined: 28-July 02
From: B'ham UK
Member No.: 2828



Hey!!! I'm glad to see this time around some people are voting for AAC! smile.gif Last time I saw a poll like this it was in the gutters with VQF & WMA.

Personally I see AAC as soon to be the best all rounder. Equal quality to MPC at the highest end, the best at 100-150kbs, and not too far behind ogg atm at the low end. With AAC+SBR it will hopefully rival OGG at the low end, being the best or close 2nd in all three areas tongue.gif


--------------------
< w o g o n e . c o m / l o l >
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Continuum
post Sep 26 2002, 11:19
Post #20





Group: Members
Posts: 473
Joined: 7-June 02
Member No.: 2244



Uhm... you all know that this thread is a year old? blink.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Guest_SK1_*
post Sep 26 2002, 11:29
Post #21





Guests






QUOTE (Mac @ Sep 26 2002 - 10:03 AM)
Hey!!! I'm glad to see this time around some people are voting for AAC! smile.gif  Last time I saw a poll like this it was in the gutters with VQF & WMA.

Personally I see AAC as soon to be the best all rounder.  Equal quality to MPC at the highest end, the best at 100-150kbs, and not too far behind ogg atm at the low end.  With AAC+SBR it will hopefully rival OGG at the low end, being the best or close 2nd in all three areas tongue.gif

I guess you can say "Equal quality to MPC at the highest end", yeah, but it's simply false. MPC is better at the "highest end". But you can say it's subjective. So, yeah whatever smile.gif..

OK, to prove it's not just a matter of opinion, AAC has ~5ms pre-echo (according to Psytel's site, which now is inactive) and MPC has ~2ms pre-echo. "Just as good quality" BUT better pre-echo handling = "BETTER quality".
chakachakachakaprrrrrbang!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
westgroveg
post Sep 28 2002, 02:12
Post #22





Group: Members
Posts: 1236
Joined: 5-October 01
Member No.: 220



QUOTE (SK1 @ Sep 26 2002 - 10:29 PM)
QUOTE (Mac @ Sep 26 2002 - 10:03 AM)
Hey!!! I'm glad to see this time around some people are voting for AAC! smile.gif  Last time I saw a poll like this it was in the gutters with VQF & WMA.

Personally I see AAC as soon to be the best all rounder.  Equal quality to MPC at the highest end, the best at 100-150kbs, and not too far behind ogg atm at the low end.  With AAC+SBR it will hopefully rival OGG at the low end, being the best or close 2nd in all three areas tongue.gif

I guess you can say "Equal quality to MPC at the highest end", yeah, but it's simply false. MPC is better at the "highest end". But you can say it's subjective. So, yeah whatever smile.gif..

OK, to prove it's not just a matter of opinion, AAC has ~5ms pre-echo (according to Psytel's site, which now is inactive) and MPC has ~2ms pre-echo. "Just as good quality" BUT better pre-echo handling = "BETTER quality".
chakachakachakaprrrrrbang!

As far as I understand & the tests I have seen MPC has no pre-echo problems, it's inaudible AAC may only have ~5ms pre-echo but it's clearly a problem & I think it can never be as good as MPC/subband encoding.

IMO MPC kicks any codecs ass from 160kbps+
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Mac
post Sep 28 2002, 02:46
Post #23





Group: Members
Posts: 650
Joined: 28-July 02
From: B'ham UK
Member No.: 2828



Lol, I knew I'd be jumped on for saying such things!

QUOTE
AAC has ~5ms pre-echo and MPC has ~2ms pre-echo

To me, these are both very small and so are similar. I can't identify pre-echo in any AAC file I've played. I don't see why 5ms should be a clear problem whereas 2ms is totally undetectable.

QUOTE
I guess you can say "Equal quality to MPC at the highest end", yeah, but it's simply false. MPC is better at the "highest end".

That's battling my uncommon opinion with your more widely believed opinion! tongue.gif
Nobody has done the golden thing of ABXing AAC vs MPC in a musical sample other than fatboy! I need to see something I could see a difference in to be swayed.

My thoughts on it are that both AAC and MPC are at the point where at 160kb+ they are transparent. Heck, I couldn't ABX an 88kb AAC from the original wave! Unless you have good equipment in a good listening environment, with good hearing and you are actively looking for faults, you won't spot any difference between these codecs. I'm not looking for faults unless I'm testing, I'm looking for good music smile.gif Seriously, does that make me not an audiophile? (eg, what is one, other than one who loves music?)

160kb is the magic number for MPC. Below that point its very nature prevents it from doing well? That just isn't flexible enough! That's my main complaint with MPC. My other 2 complaints was it's community didn't have a Rjamorim in it, and I didn't like it's lowpassing... it looked mechanical, whereas AAC's looks more natural. (you see how er, non technical I can be) smile.gif


--------------------
< w o g o n e . c o m / l o l >
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dibrom
post Sep 28 2002, 02:54
Post #24


Founder


Group: Admin
Posts: 2958
Joined: 26-August 02
From: Nottingham, UK
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (westgroveg @ Sep 27 2002 - 06:12 PM)
As far as I understand & the tests I have seen MPC has no pre-echo problems, it's inaudible AAC may only have ~5ms pre-echo but it's clearly a problem & I think it can never be as good as MPC/subband encoding.

IMO MPC kicks any codecs ass from 160kbps+

Hrmm... actually, IIRC, on that page Frank made which showed the graphs of time resolution for various codecs, he stated that AAC could theoretically have better time resolution than MPC/MP2/etc when TNS was being utilized. The problem though is tuning and short block triggering. It might actually have a possibility for even less pre-echo than MPC during certain situations (short blocks + TNS) but actually getting this stuff triggered exactly when it is necessary is much more difficult than the way in which MPC would handle it. So as a result, MPC often sounds much better in that regard.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Guest_SK1_*
post Sep 28 2002, 02:58
Post #25





Guests






"Lol, I knew I'd be jumped on for saying such things!"
Didn't jump on you, really smile.gif..

"I need to see something I could see a difference in to be swayed."
More like "hear" smile.gif.
That's easy smile.gif encode castanets.wav with AAC with archive quality and with MPC with --quality 7 or 8. I'm almost sure you'll notice the difference.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >
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: 3rd September 2014 - 02:40