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

6 Pages V  « < 3 4 5 6 >  
Closed TopicStart new topic
time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll, Been a while, eh?
Which lossy is YOUR daddy?
Which lossy is YOUR daddy?
MP3 [ 218 ] ** [36.09%]
Ogg Vorbis [ 154 ] ** [25.50%]
MP4-AAC [ 68 ] ** [11.26%]
MPC [ 146 ] ** [24.17%]
WMA [ 12 ] ** [1.99%]
Other [ 6 ] ** [0.99%]
Total Votes: 742
  
Cool Dog
post Apr 20 2005, 05:11
Post #101





Group: Banned
Posts: 10
Joined: 19-April 05
Member No.: 21563



I am glad with Vorbis 1.1RC1 in Q6.. good quality and excellent sound. smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
CyberInferno
post Apr 20 2005, 11:36
Post #102





Group: Members
Posts: 116
Joined: 4-May 03
Member No.: 6377



QUOTE (atici @ Feb 24 2005, 08:51 PM)
Seriously, in 10 years do you think any of us will care which lossy audio codec is better?
*

Yes, I think in 10 years we will still use lossy audio codecs. The reasoning being that we'll probably be using some other media other than CD. Either DVD-A or another competitor. Consequently, ripping an uncompressed source will be a lot larger than ripping your standard CDs. I think we will all use lossless for whatever CDs we own, and probably a lossy codec for whatever new standard comes out (lossy equating to probably FLAC size or so). Just my guess, though.


--------------------
-CyberInferno
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
audioprotein
post Aug 3 2005, 20:20
Post #103





Group: Members
Posts: 1
Joined: 3-August 05
Member No.: 23672



I believe that lossy encoding will still be relevant in the future, even when storage becomes so cheap and copious that file sizes are of no concern. The reason for its future relevancy will be due to the need to get as many songs as possible on a cd or player (in whichever format). Even when every car becomes blue-tooth enabled or dvd-r playable, etc. and every player can store gigs of data; small file sizes will still be desirable. People always want the most for the least. When our players can hold a billion songs using lossless compression, many will still choose lossy files in order to hold 10 billion songs- even if they don't have half that number in their collections!!!

QUOTE (atici @ Feb 24 2005, 09:51 PM)
My vote will go to MPC for all lossy purposes. But in a few years space will be plenty then I'll use only lossless for audio (lossy for video still). Seriously, in 10 years do you think any of us will care which lossy audio codec is better?
*


--------------------
That's the correct answer to another question.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
singaiya
post Aug 3 2005, 21:19
Post #104





Group: Members
Posts: 365
Joined: 21-November 02
Member No.: 3830



Agreed completely Audioprotein. Besides, what's the point in going lossless when most probably can't even ABX cbr 160?

edit: except of course for archiving rare and irreplaceable masters.

This post has been edited by singaiya: Aug 3 2005, 21:20
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
sdexp
post Aug 8 2005, 19:52
Post #105





Group: Members
Posts: 3
Joined: 8-August 05
Member No.: 23784



It doesn't seem like lossy codecs are ever going to leave the playing field, so why not stick with one which it bound to be kept open like OGG?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
smz
post Aug 9 2005, 03:42
Post #106





Group: Members
Posts: 601
Joined: 15-February 04
From: Venezia, Italia
Member No.: 12025



QUOTE (singaiya @ Aug 3 2005, 09:19 PM)
Agreed completely Audioprotein. Besides, what's the point in going lossless when most probably can't even ABX cbr 160?

edit: except of course for archiving rare and irreplaceable masters.
*


The point, for me, is being able to recode my music to the lossy-codec-of-the-day (the one with less artifacts, or the more efficient, or the one that is better supported by my DAP) without any "generation loss".

Sergio


--------------------
Sergio
Revox B150 + (JBL 4301B | Sennheiser HD430)
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
smz
post Aug 9 2005, 03:43
Post #107





Group: Members
Posts: 601
Joined: 15-February 04
From: Venezia, Italia
Member No.: 12025



QUOTE (sdexp @ Aug 8 2005, 07:52 PM)
It doesn't seem like lossy codecs are ever going to leave the playing field, so why not stick with one which it bound to be kept open like OGG?
*


It doesn't seem like lossy codecs are ever going to leave the playing field, so why not stick with one which it bound to be kept, like MP3?


--------------------
Sergio
Revox B150 + (JBL 4301B | Sennheiser HD430)
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Busemann
post Aug 9 2005, 13:44
Post #108





Group: Members
Posts: 730
Joined: 5-January 04
Member No.: 10970



QUOTE (sdexp @ Aug 8 2005, 10:52 AM)
It doesn't seem like lossy codecs are ever going to leave the playing field, so why not stick with one which it bound to be kept open like OGG?
*


AFAIK, WMA is the only proprietary lossy codec around.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
HbG
post Aug 9 2005, 15:28
Post #109





Group: Members
Posts: 289
Joined: 12-May 03
From: The Hague
Member No.: 6555



Then there's ATRAC, VQF. Not sure about MP3 Pro.


--------------------
Veni Vidi Vorbis.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
dirkvl
post Aug 9 2005, 18:44
Post #110





Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 23-July 05
Member No.: 23483



At the moment, everything I archive goes to ogg, at qval 7. If I need mp3, wma of aac, I reencode with Dbpoweramp. MP3ENC (under Dbpoweramp) is my favorite for swiftly putting things on an mp3-stick now. OGG Lancer build is my favorite for archiving.
Many thanks to Spoon for his great soft !

Dirk.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
heavymetalwiseon...
post Aug 9 2005, 18:56
Post #111





Group: Members
Posts: 124
Joined: 25-April 05
From: Greece
Member No.: 21690



I use mp3. The reason is because I cannot hear any difference to other formats, is supported by my portable and 'cause it is the most well-known format.


--------------------
Heavy Metal Is the Law!!!
---Let 'Em Eat Metal---
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Involarius
post Oct 9 2005, 11:08
Post #112





Group: Members
Posts: 32
Joined: 8-October 05
Member No.: 24986



For now: Vorbis at quality 6 (nominal bitrate of 192 kbit/s) for all my songs.

In the past I did MP3 at 128 kbit/s just like everyone else back then. But it started to sound like crap as I got better headphones, and when I tried out a Linux LiveCD I found it wouldn't play MP3s (because of the patent licensing problem), so I got out every master CD I could and recoded to Vorbis. I still code MP3 (with LAME --alt-preset standard) for use in hardware players, such as my dad's car player.

In the future, when I get a bigger hard drive, I'll leave lossy altogether. I already use lossless for archives and for a select few songs.


--------------------
FLAC – all your bit are belong to you
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
encosion
post Nov 4 2005, 02:41
Post #113





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



Surely the results of this poll depend entirely on usage... I maintain a FLAC collection... For playback on my home PC, I naturally playback the FLAC files...

For portable use however I tried OGG -Q6/7 (A Garf Tuned variety) on my old Neuros 80Gb DAP, but had inconsistant playback results - skipping, etc, so ended up switching to MP3 LAME -APX...

However, now that my Neuros is dead (For the second / third time!), and I'm about to obtain my 5G 60Gb iPod - I'll vote for AAC...

The point being, you choose a lossy codec according to your needs first and foremost... Sure I'd prefer to use MPC over all other lossy codecs... But without hardware support, I find it completely redundant... If I'm PC-bound, why play an MPC file when you can simply play the lossless version instead? Then again, with well over 400Gb of FLAC files (and continually growing), I guess space can still be an issue...
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
vinnie97
post Nov 4 2005, 08:27
Post #114





Group: Members
Posts: 472
Joined: 6-March 03
Member No.: 5360



QUOTE
Sure I'd prefer to use MPC over all other lossy codecs...

There's little reason for this attitude anymore...the other formats have caught up and, in some cases (ie. ogg vorbis), surpassed the quality of that found in mpc in the mid bitrate range at least.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
xequence
post Dec 1 2005, 00:32
Post #115





Group: Members
Posts: 106
Joined: 1-December 05
Member No.: 26127



My music collection is in MP3. Most of it is alt preset standard, though a portion of it is in 320 Kbps CBR.

Simply put, MP3 is compatable with just about everything. OGG is probably better quality but it doesent work with my sony MP3 player and anyway I only have a couple CDs to rip.


--------------------
And if you believe theres not a chance to die...
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ameyer17
post Dec 1 2005, 18:19
Post #116





Group: Banned
Posts: 78
Joined: 7-October 04
Member No.: 17551



I use both ogg vorbis and mp3 as I have a portable player that does ogg and a couple that don't.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
seezar
post Dec 10 2005, 21:46
Post #117





Group: Members
Posts: 23
Joined: 12-May 03
Member No.: 6559



For the past couple of years I've used MPC and have been happy with it. In the past couple months I've been using an XBOX with XBMC and was happy to see it supported MPC.

I've since reripped my collection to MP3 though because it offers the most compatibility and my girlfriend uses a portable player.

I've been pretty happy with LAME 3.97b2 so I've ditched my MPC collection in favor of MP3.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
weirving
post Jan 5 2006, 03:19
Post #118





Group: Members
Posts: 31
Joined: 5-December 03
Member No.: 10203



AAC is my sentimental favorite, but dang me, I still use MP3. I rip with EAC to a FLAC image with cue sheet. I use the FLACs for playback at home through my good audio system. For portable use, I then rip again with EAC/LAME to MP3, individual tracks, constant bitrate, 320 kb/s. For now, with the moldy old MP3 format, at least I know that my rips can be played on the iPod or on anything else on the market.

That being said, on some fine day...

Someone else will market a portable player that is as well designed, as usable, and as plain cool, as the Apple iPod line.

Apple will add support for gapless ripping and playback of AAC to both iTunes and the iPod.

Apple will quit shoving the proprietary Apple Lossless format (that absolutely nobody but them will ever support - even if Apple would let them) down our throats and support FLAC instead.

Apple will, in lieu of or in addition to, gapless support, add support for cue sheets to iTunes and the iPod.

THEN, I will switch to AAC. But by then, we might have antigravity, hyperdrive, and cars that run 100 miles per pound of bull****, of which supplies are abundant, infintely renewable and supplied free of charge by the U.S. government. tongue.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
fearan
post Jan 7 2006, 21:59
Post #119





Group: Members
Posts: 39
Joined: 7-January 06
Member No.: 26952



Ogg Vorbis all the way!
It doesn't low-pass as badly as the other codecs, and it's constantly improving through the work of the open-source community. There are no license restrictions, and in my opinion, it sounds the best of any lossy codec out there. I encode at Q4, or ~~128kbps, which is a lot better in Vorbis than it is in MP3. It is a superb codec!

This post has been edited by fearan: Jan 7 2006, 22:00
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
gameplaya15143
post Jan 8 2006, 21:54
Post #120





Group: Members
Posts: 484
Joined: 8-January 06
From: Earth
Member No.: 26978



Ogg Vorbis here
all encoded with -q 0 --advanced-encode-option lowpass_frequency=999
the majority of which was done with oggenc 1.0.1 (and about half of that majority transcoded from mp3, too lazy to re-rip the cds wink.gif , newer stuff is encoded with the latest lancer cool.gif )
with an average bitrate of ~68kbps, i save quite a bit of space on my little 40gb hdd.

wub.gif after using vorbis.. i can never go back to mp3


--------------------
Vorbis-q0-lowpass99
lame3.93.1-q5-V9-k-nspsytune
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
pepoluan
post Jan 9 2006, 02:29
Post #121





Group: Members
Posts: 1455
Joined: 22-November 05
From: Jakarta
Member No.: 25929



Vorbis -q 2 for most songs. GSPlayer on my PDA plays .ogg beautifully biggrin.gif Most of them transcoded from MP3 128kbps CBR huh.gif

Vorbis -q 4 for classical music (mostly guitar pieces -- my brother's collection). Most of them transcoded from MP3 192 kbps CBR.

FLAC if I don't own the CD rolleyes.gif then to Vorbis -q 2 to fit the smallish CF of my PDA.

Oh and I use Lancer 20051217 tools & DLLs. cool.gif

Been experimenting with lower -q values for transcoding blink.gif can't believe my ears... reports to come in listening test section...


--------------------
Nobody is Perfect.
I am Nobody.

http://pandu.poluan.info
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
jorsol
post Jan 24 2006, 00:01
Post #122





Group: Members
Posts: 89
Joined: 7-March 05
From: Managua
Member No.: 20434



I have been using Ogg Vorbis since the 1.0 release, I was pretty amazed with the quality (I still remember the metallic sound at 64kbps but way better than MP3), that in fact I start using -q 2 (96kbps) for all my rips, for me and my ears only (so no TOS8 violation here) 96kbps was even better than MP3 at 128kbps CBR (that was the standard de facto in that time). In my lastest rips I use -q 4 (128kbps) using AoTuV for the best relation quality-space (and based on the listening tests that show Ogg Vorbis like the best at 128kbps).


--------------------
JorSol
aoTuVb5 -q4
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
vinnie97
post Jan 24 2006, 10:26
Post #123





Group: Members
Posts: 472
Joined: 6-March 03
Member No.: 5360



quite the amazing results as of late with Vorbis destined to snatch second place (1 vote away) from MPC. cool.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Acid8000
post Jan 24 2006, 11:39
Post #124





Group: Members
Posts: 279
Joined: 14-May 05
From: Sydney
Member No.: 22048



Go go Musepack! smile.gif


--------------------
Acid8000 aka. PhilDEE
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
SebastianG
post Jan 24 2006, 12:09
Post #125





Group: Developer
Posts: 1318
Joined: 20-March 04
From: Göttingen (DE)
Member No.: 12875



Even though I got 200 GB of HD storage space I still don't make use of any lossless codecs at all. MP3 (160 kbps-ish and above) / Vorbis (-q4) is fine to me and plays on my iRiver H120.

Although... from a technical/format point of view I'm more in favour of AAC. AAC-Killer arguments for me are: lack of good hardware support and lack of good (free) encoders that don't come bundled with something like iTunes dry.gif

Musepack ? No thanks.

Sebi

This post has been edited by SebastianG: Jan 24 2006, 12:10
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

6 Pages V  « < 3 4 5 6 >
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: 18th September 2014 - 15:51