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

4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >  
Closed TopicStart new topic
What bitrate do you use? (2011), MP3, AAC, Vorbis, MPC and others.
What bitrate do you use? (2011)
MP3
~100 kbps or less [ 10 ] ** [2.09%]
~130 kbps [ 32 ] ** [6.69%]
~145 kbps [ 12 ] ** [2.51%]
~160 kbps [ 28 ] ** [5.86%]
~180 kbps [ 45 ] ** [9.41%]
~200 kbps [ 66 ] ** [13.81%]
~225 kbps [ 38 ] ** [7.95%]
~260 kbps [ 60 ] ** [12.55%]
320 kbps [ 62 ] ** [12.97%]
I don't encode to MP3 [ 125 ] ** [26.15%]
Post-MP3 codecs: AAC, Vorbis, MPC etc...
~100 kbps or less [ 32 ] ** [6.82%]
~130 kbps [ 56 ] ** [11.94%]
~160 kbps [ 58 ] ** [12.37%]
~180 kbps [ 36 ] ** [7.68%]
~200 kbps [ 45 ] ** [9.59%]
~225 kbps [ 25 ] ** [5.33%]
~260 kbps [ 32 ] ** [6.82%]
~320 kbps [ 22 ] ** [4.69%]
More than 320 kbps [ 19 ] ** [4.05%]
I don't use these codecs [ 144 ] ** [30.70%]
Total Votes: 520
  
pcourtney1
post Jun 4 2011, 18:32
Post #26





Group: Members
Posts: 3
Joined: 4-June 11
Member No.: 91216



Musepack SV8 Standard Bitrate when used in conjunction with EAC ver 1.0 beta 2

then copy files across to various iPod 5th Gen players with Rockbox ver 3.8.1 which
has support for Musepack SV8

also very happy with VLC Media Player on various Windows laptops churning out SV8
encoded files via various headphones, speakers etc around work and home :-)

Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
kwanbis
post Jun 5 2011, 01:34
Post #27





Group: Developer (Donating)
Posts: 2362
Joined: 28-June 02
From: Argentina
Member No.: 2425



QUOTE (Nick.C @ Feb 17 2011, 07:28) *
I would rather target a quality than a specific bitrate.

Agree with him. I use mostly -v2.


--------------------
MAREO: http://www.webearce.com.ar
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
kornchild2002
post Jun 5 2011, 01:49
Post #28





Group: Members
Posts: 2078
Joined: 8-April 05
From: Cincinnati, OH
Member No.: 21277



I switched computing platforms from Windows to Mac OS X earlier this year so my lossy encoding preferences changed. Before I would rely on Nero AAC at -q0.45 and ALAC for my archives. The later hasn't changed but I now use QuickTime AAC at 160kbps true VBR as it is built right into the OS and XLD can harness that rather easily. I encode at 128kbps VBR_constrained with iTunes AAC for uploading to my Amazon cloud account.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Destroid
post Jun 5 2011, 03:18
Post #29





Group: Members
Posts: 550
Joined: 4-June 02
Member No.: 2220



QUOTE (Destroid @ Mar 4 2011, 03:31) *
Why Musepack: still appears have the fastest decode speed of lossy formats according to my tests using foo_bench.dll; psy-model/VBR appears to perform well (mpcbits.exe showed bitrates at --standard between 3kbps to over 1000kbps); APE tags

I was requested to upload MPCbits.exe for another HA user, and having found the ancient binary I decided to re-examine my claim. It turns out my above statement is not entirely correct. Unable to edit my previous post, I wanted to clarify that huge bitrates reported by MPCbits.exe are usually one or two frames, and usually at the beginning of the audio file. This appears to be a necessary design of the gapless function (forgot to add that in my list of features wink.gif ) and usually appears when the audio is at the very start of the track.

An example of a song that has 1000+ bits frame at the beginning is off Metallica's Ride The Lightning, track 06 (note: my pressing is very early, so I'll mention the RG reported -4.01dB for the track on my CD). I specifically used Musepack version 1.1.6 with no commandline arguments (-q5).


--------------------
"Something bothering you, Mister Spock?"
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
C.R.Helmrich
post Jun 5 2011, 11:51
Post #30





Group: Developer
Posts: 688
Joined: 6-December 08
From: Erlangen Germany
Member No.: 64012



Looking at the results of this and a previous poll for a public AAC test, it seems that people use >130-kbps bitrates much more often than say <100-kbps or so. Which leads me to conclude that - if there will ever be another high-bitrate test - people would be more interested in testing 130 kbps than lower bitrates. Correct?

Chris

This post has been edited by C.R.Helmrich: Jun 5 2011, 11:52


--------------------
If I don't reply to your reply, it means I agree with you.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
kwanbis
post Jun 5 2011, 19:33
Post #31





Group: Developer (Donating)
Posts: 2362
Joined: 28-June 02
From: Argentina
Member No.: 2425



QUOTE (C.R.Helmrich @ Jun 5 2011, 10:51) *
Looking at the results of this and a previous poll for a public AAC test, it seems that people use >130-kbps bitrates much more often than say <100-kbps or so. Which leads me to conclude that - if there will ever be another high-bitrate test - people would be more interested in testing 130 kbps than lower bitrates. Correct?

While i can not pick -v4 from the original, i encode to v2, because i like to play music with friends, and i rather be safe than sorry, so yes, for me 130 is more interesting than 100.


--------------------
MAREO: http://www.webearce.com.ar
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
IgorC
post Jun 15 2011, 05:48
Post #32





Group: Members
Posts: 1576
Joined: 3-January 05
From: ARG/RUS
Member No.: 18803



QUOTE (C.R.Helmrich @ Jun 5 2011, 07:51) *
Looking at the results of this and a previous poll for a public AAC test, it seems that people use >130-kbps bitrates much more often than say <100-kbps or so. Which leads me to conclude that - if there will ever be another high-bitrate test - people would be more interested in testing 130 kbps than lower bitrates. Correct?

Chris

I'm also interested in 128 kbps public test.
Although it makes sense to conduct it first at 96kbps.
As for me when I can't hear the artifact at high bitrates I will go to lower bitrate to figure out the nature of it and then get back to spot it at previous high bitrate.

Now the listeners who have participated in previous 64 kbps test are trained to perform new one at 96 kbps. Jumping to 128 kbps will be too abrupt.
And then we will see.

Just my thoughts.

QUOTE (kwanbis @ Jun 5 2011, 15:33) *
While i can not pick -v4

That means that you would be able to provide useful results if there would be -V 5 (130 kbps) test and even lower bitrate for AAC, Vorbis, Opus.

This post has been edited by IgorC: Jun 15 2011, 05:51
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
DonP
post Jun 15 2011, 11:30
Post #33





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 1471
Joined: 11-February 03
From: Vermont
Member No.: 4955



Just a thought on the choices.
Though the results don't show a lot down there I would have expected people choosing <130 kb/s would have more reason to make a conscious choice and more significant difference in quality and space driving that choice compared to choosing between, say, 200 and 225 kb/s. But "100 and less" is the only choice in that range.

If I'm encoding for the portable, generally vorbis in the q0 through q3 range depending on how much I like the piece.
For just talk, especially audio books that often run 6 hours, I encode at 10-20 kb/s in speex.
Music on the PC, mostly vorbis or mpc in the 190 range.
Mp3 is mostly things I get already encoded in the 180-256 range from emusic, some music podcasts, etc.


Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Martel
post Jun 15 2011, 22:34
Post #34





Group: Members
Posts: 553
Joined: 31-May 04
From: Czech Rep.
Member No.: 14430



I just started using MPC extreme (~200 kbps) on my Rockboxed Sansa Clip+ (it's skipped by the annoying OF indexer as a bonus). I was previously using Vorbis q6 on it and VBR MP3 around 220kbps (I guess it was V2) on my Samsung mobile phone. I also keep everything in FLAC on a PC.

This post has been edited by Martel: Jun 15 2011, 22:35


--------------------
IE4 Rockbox Clip+ AAC@192; HD 668B/HD 518 Xonar DX FB2k FLAC;
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Satellite_6
post Jun 15 2011, 23:46
Post #35





Group: Members
Posts: 40
Joined: 13-September 10
From: VA, USA
Member No.: 83831



~260, although I only use lossy on my underused DAP. . .


--------------------
JDS Labs ODAC/O2 -> Sennheiser HD 650
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
dsimcha
post Jun 16 2011, 04:24
Post #36





Group: Members
Posts: 58
Joined: 2-November 04
Member No.: 17953



On my PC, where storage is unbelievably cheap, I refuse to settle for anything other than lossless, just for the sake of having guaranteed "perfect" archival quality. I know it's overkill, but when a terabyte of storage can be had for $60, I think overkill is justified. Furthermore, having lossless files on my PC simplifies transcoding if I change my mind about what I want on my portable. Within the lossless domain, I use FLAC because it's the best supported.

On portable equipment, where storage is an order of magnitude more scarce, I use Vorbis -q2. When encoded from the FLACs on my PC, I find it near transparent. I can ABX some stuff but the arifacts are extremely small nitpicks and not at all annoying and there's plenty more that I can't ABX. Vorbis -q2 is roughly 96 kbps and lets me fit tons of stuff on my cheap yet very good 4GB Sansa Fuze and Clip. I don't care about "archival quality" or "safety factors" here because I have the FLACs on my PC.

I know that my encoding preferences sound like two extremes, but in my experience once you get to "near transparent", increasing the bitrate of lossy compression further gets you to "completely transparent" in a very slow, asymptotic manner, if at all. Even though I can't ABX most stuff at -q2 in Vorbis, there's one killer sample that I've successfully ABX'd at -q7 (nominal bitrate 224 kbps). Therefore, I tend to believe in lossless, which is guaranteed transparent, when space is cheap and relatively low "near transparent" bitrates when space is at a premium.

This post has been edited by dsimcha: Jun 16 2011, 04:35
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Diow
post Jun 16 2011, 05:11
Post #37





Group: Members
Posts: 94
Joined: 4-June 06
From: Ponta Grossa,PR
Member No.: 31450



I'm using MP3 for my "high-end" equipament, headphones (in case, SONY MDR-V900HD) of my pc, and aac to my mobile phone with cheap phones, due to compatibility with "tagged" covers isn't MP3, replaced with aac (Nero).

This post has been edited by Diow: Jun 16 2011, 05:12


--------------------
Sorry for my bad english.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
K-Meleon
post Jun 16 2011, 06:13
Post #38





Group: Members
Posts: 6
Joined: 31-December 09
Member No.: 76559



LAME 3.98 -v5 or QuickTime AAC q65 (which usually ends up at about ~120 kbps for my collection). I also have the original FLACs of my music on my main computer, but for some reason I prefer listening to the lossy rips.

I try to walk the line between file size and quality, and those bitrates are perfect for that. I still have a rockboxed Sansa e260, but I also have a new 8 GB iPod touch. Neither have all that much space, and when I'm listening to my portable player on the bus/subway, I wouldn't be able to hear low bitrate artifacts anyway. (But I'm not a very discerning listener compared to many people here -- LAME -v4 sounds transparent to me.) I think higher bitrates would also consume too much battery for my liking.

I use mp3 for universal compatibility, and AAC on my iPod. I would have completely swiched to AAC by now, but it's not as efficient to decode, i.e. it uses more battery on rockbox devices.

I prowled through these forums about codec information, and these two links: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....60117&st=50 and http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=66949 told me that low bitrate QuickTime AAC was actually incredibly good.

I feel like lame mp3 or aac have reached their peak in quality at the bitrates I encode at, for at least a year now, and that makes me relieved. I've been replacing my older mp3 collection recently (like 128kbps mp3s from ten years ago; they sound too strange and lo-fi for me now). I'm confident I'll be able to preserve my current collection without having to re-rip everything in the future.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Engelsstaub
post Jun 16 2011, 06:21
Post #39





Group: Members
Posts: 561
Joined: 16-February 10
Member No.: 78200



FLAC w/cue sheets for archival/storage purposes.

ALAC for most music on my iPod Touch 64 Gb. (Probably not entirely necessary, but I don't care.) AAC VBR @256 Kbps for some.

HE-AAC @ 64 Kbps (usually stereo) for spoken word recordings.

(I can ABX a LAME-encoded MP3 @ 128 Kbps 100% of the time, but that's trivial. The differences I've heard in such tests were nearly negligible and I probably would not have noticed them if I wasn't "testing" something. I've never tested anything higher than that...it doesn't interest me too terribly.)


--------------------
The Loudness War is over. Now it's a hopeless occupation.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
probedb
post Jun 16 2011, 11:07
Post #40





Group: Members
Posts: 1233
Joined: 6-September 04
Member No.: 16817



I don't encode to a bitrate, it's whatever -V 2 gives me.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Andavari
post Jun 16 2011, 14:06
Post #41





Group: Members
Posts: 935
Joined: 3-June 02
From: USA
Member No.: 2204



Like others I also don't encode to a bitrate.

For regular albums I have that are alright, but which I also don't listen to that often I use:
LAME -V 2

For albums I love and listen to allot, i.e.; several times each year I use:
LAME -V 0

I also have many albums archived on DVDs using FLAC.


--------------------
Complexity of incoherent design.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
LANjackal
post Jun 16 2011, 16:48
Post #42





Group: Members
Posts: 731
Joined: 26-October 05
From: Various networks
Member No.: 25371



I use LAME -V0, which I think puts me in the ~260kbps MP3 slot


--------------------
EAC>1)fb2k>LAME3.99 -V 0 --vbr-new>WMP12 2)MAC-Extra High
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
orchid
post Jun 16 2011, 17:36
Post #43





Group: Members
Posts: 102
Joined: 5-December 06
Member No.: 38397



I use lossless (TAK) and convert to MP3 VBR V2 for portable/car. Excluding digital purchases which are usually 320 kbps MP3.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
krafty
post Jun 16 2011, 20:19
Post #44





Group: Members
Posts: 278
Joined: 20-March 10
Member No.: 79175



I have been using LAME 3.98.4 at -V0, which is around 256 kbps.
FLAC copies on Genuine Verbatim DVD's, although the last time I promised not to do DVD backup anymore as it is a tedious and consuming process.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
d_headshot
post Jun 24 2011, 23:13
Post #45





Group: Members
Posts: 195
Joined: 28-September 08
Member No.: 58729



I use LAME 3.98 with V0. I can't tell the difference between V2-V0 and lossless even on pretty revealing headphones, yet my hearing can go up to 19kHz(and I'm 20 years old lol).

Guess that goes to show that LAME does an excellent job in my opinion.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Meeko
post Jun 27 2011, 19:11
Post #46





Group: Members
Posts: 82
Joined: 24-December 09
From: New York
Member No.: 76308



Home computer - FLAC

Portable Player - MP3 @ -V0 (245kbps)

External HD for Work - Vorbis @ q 4.0 (128kbps)


Perhaps its overkill, but I paid for the space, so why not use it? The speakers I have with the work system really aren't that super, so vorbis works great for the stuff I want to take to work.


--------------------
foobar2000, FLAC, and qAAC -V68
It just works people!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Mr. Molly
post Aug 16 2011, 00:47
Post #47





Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 13-September 08
Member No.: 58232



I didn't realize lossy formats were still this popular.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
kwanbis
post Aug 16 2011, 01:34
Post #48





Group: Developer (Donating)
Posts: 2362
Joined: 28-June 02
From: Argentina
Member No.: 2425



Lossy formats are much more popular than non lossy ones.


--------------------
MAREO: http://www.webearce.com.ar
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
godrick
post Aug 16 2011, 04:03
Post #49





Group: Members
Posts: 307
Joined: 31-December 10
Member No.: 86948



LAME v0, mostly for for PC and ipod
FLAC , mostly for home theater and ipod with Rockbox

I ripped very carefully to FLAC with dBpoweramp and then converted to mp3 with LAME. My priorities were to never rip or transcode again, and treat disc space as cheap or unlimited. I never conducted a robust comparison between LAME v0 and FLAC on my ipod, PC or home theater, but with crude comparisons I could not recognize or recall any differences between these formats on any playback device. I will not rule out issues with my old Irish ears. I find myself listening to my LAME library much more than FLAC because I spend much more time in front of my computer instead of my home theater.

This post has been edited by godrick: Aug 16 2011, 04:06
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
SoNic67
post Aug 20 2011, 13:07
Post #50





Group: Members
Posts: 108
Joined: 3-February 11
Member No.: 87877



FLAC all the way... On my home digital receiver.
I don't listen to music on phones or other similar devices.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

4 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: 22nd September 2014 - 01:21