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

5 Pages V  « < 3 4 5  
Closed TopicStart new topic
Which lossy format are you using?, Poll version 2
Which lossy format are you using?
Which lossy format are you using?
MP3 [ 191 ] ** [28.01%]
Ogg Vorbis [ 139 ] ** [20.38%]
AAC/MP4 [ 76 ] ** [11.14%]
Musepack [ 194 ] ** [28.45%]
WMA / WMA Pro [ 8 ] ** [1.17%]
RM / VQF [ 0 ] ** [0.00%]
AC3 / Atrac [ 1 ] ** [0.15%]
MP3pro [ 2 ] ** [0.29%]
No lossy - lossless for me [ 68 ] ** [9.97%]
Other [ 3 ] ** [0.44%]
Total Votes: 803
  
linus
post Oct 31 2004, 08:06
Post #101





Group: Members
Posts: 123
Joined: 10-April 04
Member No.: 13389



QUOTE (k.eight.a @ Oct 26 2004, 12:32 AM)
I'm still sticking with MP3 --aps, because of the wide HW support. I was considering to go for Ogg Vorbis but unfortunately I'm still confused with those many various compiles and "transparent settings" so for me it's not enough clear to move to Ogg Vorbis.

I hope one day it might be clearer and Ogg Vorbis would be more supported by HW then I'll go with Ogg Vorbis...

Exactly te same for me
I have 130 giga of mp3 stored in cd and external hd, and lame preset standard or extreme is enough transparent to me.
All mp3 are mp3gained and tagged, and reencoding is not in my plan now... too much work!
I still go with mp3, because I will keep simple my collection: only mp3= only 1 set of programs (well, 1 set for every OS!)
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dologan
post Oct 31 2004, 08:39
Post #102





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 478
Joined: 22-November 01
From: United Kingdom
Member No.: 519



QUOTE (kotrtim)
mpc is definitely not a good solution for portable
just do some decoding test with dBpowerAMP converter

[...]

MPC 146kbps VBR 23X
*

Something is seriously wrong with either your setup or with dBpowerAMP converter. Musepack should be around 90x on a setup like yours. Perhaps you are dithering? As Digisurfers link shows (and also as general knowledge), Musepack sweeps the floor with every other codec at (undithered) decoding speed, a feature that would make it great for portables. Decoding speed is not what stops MPC from getting portable support.

This post has been edited by Dologan: Oct 31 2004, 08:41
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
shadowking
post Oct 31 2004, 10:05
Post #103





Group: Members
Posts: 1523
Joined: 31-January 04
Member No.: 11664



Has anyone gotten a hold of that MPC ready chinese DAP yet ?


--------------------
Wavpack -b450
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
kotrtim
post Oct 31 2004, 11:05
Post #104





Group: Members
Posts: 657
Joined: 4-December 02
Member No.: 3989



QUOTE (Dologan @ Oct 30 2004, 11:39 PM)
Something is seriously wrong with either your setup or with dBpowerAMP converter. Musepack should be around 90x on a setup like yours. Perhaps you are dithering?
*


I'm confused too!
maybe dBpowerAMP is setting dither as default, I've never changed the default settings?

from the spec foo 2003,
aac is faster than ogg vorbis
but my test shows that ogg vorbis is ~10X faster than aac
and only on a par with aac at bitrate above 300 kbps.

really really confused now
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
guruboolez
post Oct 31 2004, 13:29
Post #105





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 3474
Joined: 7-November 01
From: Strasbourg (France)
Member No.: 420



kotrtim> use another tool for speed measuring. Your values have serious troubles. MP3 speed is not alone to be wrong; mpc too...

I suggest you foobar2000, using speed_meter and file buffering in RAM in order to avoid fragmentation issues.
My results (middle of the page) on a Duron 800 are very different from yours.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
theboyjenkins
post Oct 31 2004, 15:12
Post #106





Group: Members
Posts: 55
Joined: 19-February 02
From: England
Member No.: 1357



Nero (vbr) AAC over here...


--------------------
"...ambience?, I AM ambience!"
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
grokwik
post Nov 2 2004, 14:02
Post #107





Group: Members
Posts: 30
Joined: 20-April 03
Member No.: 6073



Musepack of course !
it's the best ratio size / quality
it's fast to encode
the name is cool smile.gif
foobar's icon is blue (ok it's a joke)
I don't care about portability : I need archive and mpc --q6 or more is for me cd quality .

it's "unknown" by most of people and p2p users.

In general I like to use different softs (such as foobar instead of winamp) or codecs (mpc for audio, rv10 for video and matroska for container).


--------------------
WavPack 4.31 -hm
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
user
post Nov 18 2004, 23:21
Post #108





Group: Members
Posts: 873
Joined: 12-October 01
From: the great wide open
Member No.: 277



I voted MPC
as I use as lossy format mainly MPC 1.14 at quality 8 (it fulfills 3 goals: 1. archival backup storage additional to lossless, 2. laptop, portable music, eg. CD/DVD-writer, 3. playing the music on pc-based players with digital connections to amps)

If it would be interesting to see, how many people already store in lossless, we would need another poll, as most people here voted for their preferred lossy codec, in case they were using lossless, too.


So, for the eternal archiving & HiFi listening/sessions, I use Lossless, respectively a burnt CD. The original Cds are closed away, as those are in danger to get damaged in the long run, and because of the CDDA without error correction possibilities like in data-CD, you have to make a backup of music CDs.
I switched over from FLAC to WavPack 4.1 , wavpack.exe -h -m

I extract the CD with EAC & mareo -> WavPack & MPC.
The mpc version and the lossless version are stored on different DVD+R's. So, that I have a backup, doubled safety. I add to every album 6% par2 data, blocksize 40000 B, as I have a 'slow PC'.

for portable:
I have an iRiver clone (the early 100), the AVC Soul CD-player, which plays CDDA, MP3 and wma.
So, I transcode sometimes to MP3, lame 3.90.2 , alt-preset 128k abr , usage : rather noisy car.

I have some music in 320k Lame, Fraunhofer 256k-stereo, alt-preset extreme & insane from past, 1st attempts in combining HiFi & PC. As my TYT 2000 clone Grundig 130 (UK: Scan 2000; worldwide various brands, like Daewoo 2000, 5800 etc.) can today even play DVD full of mp3, the Lame 320k (alt-)preset insane is still not totally out of usage !

This post has been edited by user: Nov 18 2004, 23:24


--------------------
www.High-Quality.ch.vu -- High Quality Audio Archiving Tutorials
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
k.eight.a
post Nov 18 2004, 23:38
Post #109





Group: Members
Posts: 434
Joined: 31-October 03
From: Europe, CZ
Member No.: 9571



QUOTE (user @ Nov 18 2004, 02:21 PM)
I switched over from FLAC to WavPack 4.1 , wavpack.exe -h -m
*


What made you to go this way? I'm just curious... wink.gif

This post has been edited by k.eight.a: Nov 18 2004, 23:38


--------------------
Sorry for my poor English, I'm trying to get better... ;)
"The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled, was convincing the world he didn't exist."
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
user
post Nov 18 2004, 23:45
Post #110





Group: Members
Posts: 873
Joined: 12-October 01
From: the great wide open
Member No.: 277



wavpack 4.1 in -h high mode needs ca. 3% less space than flac 1.1.1 or 1.1.0 in default mode 5. As speed is nearly comparable equal (by my subjective feeling and my needs, both formats require only minimal cpu power), I took advantage of the new wavpack.


--------------------
www.High-Quality.ch.vu -- High Quality Audio Archiving Tutorials
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
k.eight.a
post Nov 19 2004, 00:06
Post #111





Group: Members
Posts: 434
Joined: 31-October 03
From: Europe, CZ
Member No.: 9571



QUOTE (user @ Nov 18 2004, 02:45 PM)
wavpack 4.1 in -h high mode needs ca. 3% less space than flac 1.1.1 or 1.1.0 in default mode 5. As speed is nearly comparable equal (by my subjective feeling and my needs, both formats require only minimal cpu power), I took advantage of the new wavpack.
*


I see, thanks for reply... And what about Monkey's Audio? I think it's quite fast and has better compression but it requires more CPU power to encode & decode...


--------------------
Sorry for my poor English, I'm trying to get better... ;)
"The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled, was convincing the world he didn't exist."
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
user
post Nov 19 2004, 00:22
Post #112





Group: Members
Posts: 873
Joined: 12-October 01
From: the great wide open
Member No.: 277



yes, with the 3% size win to flac, wavpack 4.1 is now close® to monkey's ape sizewise, but at clearly lower cpu consumption than ape.


--------------------
www.High-Quality.ch.vu -- High Quality Audio Archiving Tutorials
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Mindaxiz
post Nov 19 2004, 12:49
Post #113





Group: Members
Posts: 64
Joined: 8-October 04
Member No.: 17559



Musepack for me.

after alot of ABXing and testing of several lossy formats i finally settled for Musepack. although it seeks a bit slow on my machine for some reason (which i suspect is a hardware problem) i chose it because of its fast encode/decode speeds and transperancy. i still do have tons of mp3s though, also i use vorbis or ACC for <100kbps.

all my music goes on an external harddrive using WavPack -x4 -m prior to encoding to lossy. (-x4 -m, cause the slowdown isnt that bad at all to me and it offers decoding speeds very close to flac and compresses just as good as wavpack -h, in some cases i even end up getting smaller files with -x4 then with -h)

This post has been edited by Mindaxiz: Nov 19 2004, 12:56
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
jcrab66
post Dec 15 2004, 16:53
Post #114





Group: Members
Posts: 4
Joined: 15-December 04
Member No.: 18689



lossless only for me....usually flac, sometimes shn
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Iceberg
post Dec 15 2004, 20:35
Post #115





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



When I began encoding my music collection, I only used LAME 3.90.2 -alt-preset-standard. Then I changed to LAME 3.90.3.

But right now, after buying an iRiver H340, I have been converted to Ogg Vorbis.

I encode with Oggenc2.3 using libVorbis 1.1.0 with IMPULSE_TRIGGER_PROFILE option and -q varying from 5 to 6,25, depending on genre and interest of music compressed smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Gray_Wolf
post Dec 16 2004, 18:51
Post #116





Group: Banned
Posts: 112
Joined: 19-September 04
Member No.: 17117



For me, after the a lot of ABX testing with different encoders, and many types of music and killer samples, my decision was vorbis aoTuV b2 and musepack...

For vorbis (aoTuV b2): -q6 for all of my music (jazz and rock in general)

Musepack (1.14): --xtreme --xlevel; too for all of my music.

Particularly I am very impressed with the quality of vorbis aoTuV b2.

In the past I did not like vorbis (1.0.1 and older), but, now, with the new versions and the hard work of the HA vorbis developers, my opinion is very different...
I believe (in the present moment) vorbis is a great encoder, and for me, is my encoder of choice...

Musepack is great encoder too, but, sad.gif , i believe in this moment is limited only for computers.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
FunkyRes
post Dec 20 2004, 12:13
Post #117





Group: Members
Posts: 33
Joined: 5-November 03
Member No.: 9668



mp3 for me, lame 3.96.1 from rpm.livna.org
I use aac sometimes for iTunes but usually not.

I use mp3 because it works well just about everywhere, aac doesn't work very well in my Linux desktop yet (the apps that support it skip if you do other stuff, and for encoding - there's faac and nothing else)

mp3 plays nicely in all my media players regardless of the OS, and on my mp3 cd player.
So it wind be default. Ogg - I use to use ogg, haven't tried it in awhile - but I found the quicktime plugin for ogg to be slow, it's young, so it's out for me.

I rip to flac so changing in future is not a problem.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
apecat
post Dec 24 2004, 00:34
Post #118





Group: Members
Posts: 17
Joined: 29-January 04
From: Helsinki
Member No.: 11597



I use mp3: LAME 3.96.1 from rarewares with --alt-preset standard. APS is really the only way to pack "transparent" audio that is playable everywhere on any hardware. Actually I preach quite a lot to all people I know about the wonders of --alt-preset standard and I think I doubled the amount of people ripping cd:s in my school.

If I had the Hardware I'd use Vorbis becouse it's better and it's Open, but since I'm stuck with my Sony mp3cd player I'm fine with APS. I wish I had one of those iRiver HD players....


--------------------
My Site (beta): http://mbnet.fi/apecat
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
encosion
post Jan 1 2005, 12:50
Post #119





Group: Members
Posts: 73
Joined: 18-October 03
Member No.: 9371



QUOTE (shadowking @ Oct 31 2004, 01:05 AM)
Has anyone gotten a hold of that MPC ready chinese DAP yet ?
You got more info on this?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
shadowking
post Jan 1 2005, 16:07
Post #120





Group: Members
Posts: 1523
Joined: 31-January 04
Member No.: 11664



http://www.dfan.com.cn/read.php?ID=527


Original post:


http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....64&hl=mpc&st=50


--------------------
Wavpack -b450
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
eagleray
post Jan 1 2005, 16:44
Post #121





Group: Members
Posts: 265
Joined: 15-December 03
Member No.: 10452



I am sort of surprised to see how many people use musepack and how few use lossless. As musepack has no hardware support, it is a pc only solution. Considering how cheap hard drive storage and blank DVD's have become, it seems to me that lossless should be the preferred method for music storage and playback, even if it is three times the size as MPC @ 6. OK, I realize some people do not have the right hardware for this.

When ripping in burst mode with either dbPoweramp or Foobar2000, and compressing with either flac or Monkey's I can have an average length CD on my hard drive in two minutes. this means that I do not have to keep much stored permanently. Its disposable compressed music. Again, I realize this will not appeal to those who don't mind spending half an hour to rip a scratched CD with EAC in secure mode only to find it has clicks and pops that go away when the rip is done again using burst mode.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
-Mike-
post Jan 4 2005, 19:08
Post #122





Group: Members
Posts: 2
Joined: 4-January 05
From: Sweden
Member No.: 18837



I use Vorbis because that's fast and highquality. And what can be better smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
music_man_mpc
post Jan 4 2005, 19:26
Post #123





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 707
Joined: 20-July 03
From: Canada
Member No.: 7895



QUOTE (-Mike- @ Jan 4 2005, 10:08 AM)
I use Vorbis because that's fast and highquality. And what can be better smile.gif
*

Musepack is faster and is reputed to be of higher quality than Vorbis at high bitrates, although this may not still hold true. I'm not saying that there isn't still much reason to use Vorbis (it is certainly better quality at ~128kb/s and below, hardware support, etc). It's just that based on the two criteria you mentioned in your post Musepack certainly can be better smile.gif.


--------------------
gentoo ~amd64 + layman | ncmpcpp/mpd | wavpack + vorbis + lame
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
-Mike-
post Jan 4 2005, 23:33
Post #124





Group: Members
Posts: 2
Joined: 4-January 05
From: Sweden
Member No.: 18837



QUOTE (music_man_mpc @ Jan 5 2005, 01:26 AM)
Musepack is faster and is reputed to be of higher quality than Vorbis at high bitrates, although this may not still hold true...


Ok, It's my discrepancy smile.gif
I already tested it! It's clear, ogg was better than Musepack at low (and also middle) bitrates. (-q5 for example)
Higher bitrates aren't necessary to me because i don't have hi-fi HW sad.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
picmixer
post Jan 5 2005, 19:30
Post #125





Group: Members
Posts: 1428
Joined: 10-April 03
Member No.: 5916



QUOTE (-Mike- @ Jan 5 2005, 12:33 AM)
QUOTE (music_man_mpc @ Jan 5 2005, 01:26 AM)
Musepack is faster and is reputed to be of higher quality than Vorbis at high bitrates, although this may not still hold true...


Ok, It's my discrepancy smile.gif
I already tested it! It's clear, ogg was better than Musepack at low (and also middle) bitrates. (-q5 for example)
Higher bitrates aren't necessary to me because i don't have hi-fi HW sad.gif
*


Maybe you could do us all a favour and back those claims up with some abx results and also read over the forum rules here again.

TOS #8
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

5 Pages V  « < 3 4 5
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: 30th July 2014 - 15:26