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
Which MP3 codec do you prefer?, LAME 3.90.3, 3.96.1, or something else?
Which MP3 codec do you prefer?
Which MP3 codec do you prefer?
LAME 3.90.3 [ 70 ] ** [19.94%]
LAME 3.96.1 [ 215 ] ** [61.25%]
yet another LAME version (please specify) [ 53 ] ** [15.10%]
another MP3 codec than LAME (please specify) [ 13 ] ** [3.70%]
Total Votes: 550
  
Polar
post Mar 8 2005, 01:14
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 266
Joined: 12-February 04
Member No.: 11970



MP3 still seems to be the most popular lossy audio codec by far, especially out in the wild (outside Hydrogenaudio, I mean wink.gif), a phenomenon which is now even manifesting itself amongst HA members in the most recent multi lossy codec poll.

The question whether the tried-and-true version 3.90.3 of LAME still holds up against the newer v3.96.1 as the most widely preferred MP3 codec has recently arisen in this thread in the MP3 - General forum, along with the consequent remark that a poll would not have been a bad idea to find out.

So here goes.

Quite some people have IMHO rightly raised the almost philosophical question about which codec version Hydrogenaudio should promote as recommended, if e.g. v3.96.1 were to turn out the most popular one, especially if one or the other still isn't univocally considered the best choice quality-wise. Note that this poll does not really cover this official HA recommendation question. It is aimed at getting to know your personal preference only. The official recommendation issue could perhaps be debated later on, should poll results require so.

I would like to invite supporters of other (lossy/lossless) codecs than MP3 (i.e. any MP3 codec), who don't have any particular preference for this or that MP3 encoder version, to place a null vote, so as to get as clear a view as possible on MP3 users' preference.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
rjamorim
post Mar 8 2005, 01:15
Post #2


Rarewares admin


Group: Members
Posts: 7515
Joined: 30-September 01
From: Brazil
Member No.: 81



I don't think this is the right time to start such a poll, since it doesn't seem it'll take long for 3.97 to be released.


--------------------
Get up-to-date binaries of Lame, AAC, Vorbis and much more at RareWares:
http://www.rarewares.org
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Polar
post Mar 8 2005, 01:24
Post #3





Group: Members
Posts: 266
Joined: 12-February 04
Member No.: 11970



QUOTE (rjamorim @ Mar 8 2005, 00:15 UTC)
I don't think this is the right time to start such a poll, since it doesn't seem it'll take long for 3.97 to be released.
Although I can see the reasoning behind your argument, I don't see the harm of a little curiosity for HA members' present-day preference.
After all, LAME 3.97 is still in alpha stage, so it could still take some months before a stable release, let alone several months before opinions be based on somewhat of an authoritative graduator of testing.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
geopoul
post Mar 8 2005, 01:40
Post #4





Group: Members
Posts: 42
Joined: 12-December 04
Member No.: 18631



There should be a "both 3.90.3 & 3.96.1" option.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
odious malefacto...
post Mar 8 2005, 01:56
Post #5





Group: Members
Posts: 253
Joined: 17-June 03
Member No.: 7228



QUOTE (geopoul @ Mar 7 2005, 04:40 PM)
There should be a "both 3.90.3 & 3.96.1" option.
*

True that!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
DreamTactix291
post Mar 8 2005, 06:42
Post #6





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 552
Joined: 9-June 04
From: A place long since forgotten...
Member No.: 14572



Currently what little mp3 encoding I do is with 3.96.1


--------------------
Nero AAC 1.5.1.0: -q0.45
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
stephanV
post Mar 8 2005, 09:33
Post #7





Group: Members
Posts: 394
Joined: 6-May 04
Member No.: 13932



QUOTE (rjamorim @ Mar 8 2005, 01:15 AM)
I don't think this is the right time to start such a poll, since it doesn't seem it'll take long for 3.97 to be released.

Not entirely, because 3.97 might very well end up in the "not tested enough"-corner next to 3.96. This poll could give a good indication how many people still follow the HA-recommendation. I think people using 3.96 are more likely to switch to 3.97 then people still using 3.90.3.


--------------------
"We cannot win against obsession. They care, we don't. They win."
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Synthetic Soul
post Mar 8 2005, 09:39
Post #8





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 4887
Joined: 12-August 04
From: Exeter, UK
Member No.: 16217



QUOTE (odious malefactor @ Mar 8 2005, 12:56 AM)
QUOTE (geopoul @ Mar 7 2005, 04:40 PM)
There should be a "both 3.90.3 & 3.96.1" option.
True that!
Do you encode using one, listen, and then, if there are issues, encode using the other? If so, which do you try first (and stick with, if the individual result is acceptable)? I don't mean to be inquisitorial, I'm just intrigued by your thoroughness.

I have placed my vote for 3.96.1.

Edit: How many votes need to be placed for this poll to have any bearing I wonder? Polar's "What's your lossless codec of choice?" poll received 494 votes. I think anything short of this could still be seen as inconclusive. That took four months to undertake (I can't tell whether it is closed now or not). Still, you've got to start somewhere I guess.

This post has been edited by Synthetic Soul: Mar 8 2005, 09:49


--------------------
I'm on a horse.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Polar
post Mar 8 2005, 09:41
Post #9





Group: Members
Posts: 266
Joined: 12-February 04
Member No.: 11970



QUOTE (geopoul @ Mar 8 2005, 00:40 UTC)
There should be a "both 3.90.3 & 3.96.1" option.
*
If I didn't have a clearcut preference, I'd just do the same I've advised "supporters of other (lossy/lossless) codecs than MP3, who don't have any particular preference for this or that MP3 encoder version" to do, viz. "to place a null vote".
If you really can't make a choice, nobody's obliging you to.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
krmathis
post Mar 8 2005, 09:51
Post #10





Group: Members
Posts: 742
Joined: 27-May 02
From: Oslo, Norway
Member No.: 2133



I use 3.96.1 the few times I encode to mp3.
Simply because it encodes ~2 times as fast as 3.90.3.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
guruboolez
post Mar 8 2005, 10:18
Post #11





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



3.97 alphas. I'm currently using LAME with ABR at mid bitrate, and according to my own tests, quality is clearly better than both 3.90.3 and 3.96.1 (and it's also twice faster than 3.90.3).
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Polar
post Mar 8 2005, 12:55
Post #12





Group: Members
Posts: 266
Joined: 12-February 04
Member No.: 11970



QUOTE (Synthetic Soul @ Mar 8 2005, 08:39 UTC)
How many votes need to be placed for this poll to have any bearing I wonder?  Polar's "What's your lossless codec of choice?" poll received 494 votes.  I think anything short of this could still be seen as inconclusive.
*
I'd rather say some 100 votes or so, i.e. at least a majority of all advocates of MP3 in the most recent multi lossy polls: 191 in Roberto's closed August 2004 poll and 113 so far in aabxx's current poll. You can't expect non-MP3 people to express their preference for a certain MP3 codec, if they just don't use any.
And I don't understand why the lossless poll would qualify better as a reference in this particular poll than the above-mentioned lossy ones.

<off topic>
QUOTE (Synthetic Soul @ Mar 8 2005, 08:39 UTC)
That took four months to undertake (I can't tell whether it is closed now or not).
*
Well, not quite. That lossless poll was started on August 3, 2004, and it's still not closed yet. It seems to have taken 5 weeks (i.e. by September 6) to reach the 350 cast votes stage.
</off topic>
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Synthetic Soul
post Mar 8 2005, 13:33
Post #13





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 4887
Joined: 12-August 04
From: Exeter, UK
Member No.: 16217



@Polar

Yes, my mistake. I agree that we need to compare the amount of feedback with other MP3-specific polls (and not a lossless poll). I would personally hope for between 100 and 150 - considering the figures you quote, and the nature of the poll.

Thanks for the (offtopic) info re: the lossless poll. 5 weeks is a lot more acceptable.


--------------------
I'm on a horse.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
QuantumKnot
post Mar 8 2005, 13:54
Post #14





Group: Developer
Posts: 1245
Joined: 16-December 02
From: Australia
Member No.: 4097



The only mp3 encoding I do nowadays is for video. Since speed is mostly my concern in this instance, I'm using the Xing 1.5 encoder blush.gif ph34r.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
john33
post Mar 8 2005, 15:24
Post #15


xcLame and OggDropXPd Developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 3761
Joined: 30-September 01
From: Bracknell, UK
Member No.: 111



QUOTE (QuantumKnot @ Mar 8 2005, 12:54 PM)
The only mp3 encoding I do nowadays is for video.  Since speed is mostly my concern in this instance, I'm using the Xing 1.5 encoder  blush.gif  ph34r.gif
*

At least use GoGo!! blink.gif


--------------------
John
----------------------------------------------------------------
My compiles and utilities are at http://www.rarewares.org/
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
rjamorim
post Mar 8 2005, 16:26
Post #16


Rarewares admin


Group: Members
Posts: 7515
Joined: 30-September 01
From: Brazil
Member No.: 81



QUOTE (john33 @ Mar 8 2005, 11:24 AM)
At least use GoGo!! blink.gif
*


Shame on you John! You don't even check my test results. tongue.gif

(Xing is at least as good as Gogo)

This post has been edited by rjamorim: Mar 8 2005, 16:27


--------------------
Get up-to-date binaries of Lame, AAC, Vorbis and much more at RareWares:
http://www.rarewares.org
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
TimYork
post Mar 8 2005, 17:56
Post #17





Group: Members
Posts: 41
Joined: 15-July 02
From: IL, USA
Member No.: 2607



I still use good ol' 3.90.2 -aps. My ears aren't good enough to hear the difference between 3.90.3 -aps and 3.90.2 -aps, so the extra filesize from the built in -Z option isn't justified for me. I figure if I ever do hear a difference, I'll have the option to turn it on. BTW, just out of curiosity, is there a way to turn in off in 3.90.3?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
john33
post Mar 8 2005, 18:11
Post #18


xcLame and OggDropXPd Developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 3761
Joined: 30-September 01
From: Bracknell, UK
Member No.: 111



QUOTE (TimYork @ Mar 8 2005, 04:56 PM)
I still use good ol' 3.90.2 -aps.  My ears aren't good enough to hear the difference between 3.90.3 -aps and 3.90.2 -aps, so the extra filesize from the built in -Z option isn't justified for me.  I figure if I ever do hear a difference, I'll have the option to turn it on.  BTW, just out of curiosity, is there a way to turn in off in 3.90.3?
*

No! wink.gif


--------------------
John
----------------------------------------------------------------
My compiles and utilities are at http://www.rarewares.org/
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
music_man_mpc
post Mar 8 2005, 18:59
Post #19





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



I use Qdesign and Blade!! There names are 5|_||>4R 1337!! So they must be the best choices for de 1337 |-|4><><0R!! tongue.gif


--------------------
gentoo ~amd64 + layman | ncmpcpp/mpd | wavpack + vorbis + lame
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
geopoul
post Mar 9 2005, 03:09
Post #20





Group: Members
Posts: 42
Joined: 12-December 04
Member No.: 18631



QUOTE (Polar @ Mar 8 2005, 10:41 AM)
QUOTE (geopoul @ Mar 8 2005, 00:40 UTC)
There should be a "both 3.90.3 & 3.96.1" option.
*
If I didn't have a clearcut preference, I'd just do the same I've advised "supporters of other (lossy/lossless) codecs than MP3, who don't have any particular preference for this or that MP3 encoder version" to do, viz. "to place a null vote".
If you really can't make a choice, nobody's obliging you to.
*



What i mean't is that i use them both. 3.90.3 with aps parameter and 3.96.1 for lower bitrates.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
rjamorim
post Mar 9 2005, 04:04
Post #21


Rarewares admin


Group: Members
Posts: 7515
Joined: 30-September 01
From: Brazil
Member No.: 81



QUOTE (music_man_mpc @ Mar 8 2005, 02:59 PM)
I use Qdesign and Blade!!  There names are 5|_||>4R 1337!!  So they must be the best choices for de 1337 |-|4><><0R!! tongue.gif
*


If you really believe QDesign is a 1337 name... tongue.gif


--------------------
Get up-to-date binaries of Lame, AAC, Vorbis and much more at RareWares:
http://www.rarewares.org
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
memomai
post Mar 9 2005, 17:52
Post #22





Group: Members
Posts: 264
Joined: 13-February 05
From: Germany, Kempten
Member No.: 19808



laugh.gif QDesign And Blade laugh.gif

I still use Lame 3.90.2, I think 3.97a7 is very good, too, and at least 3.90.3 of course.

Otherwise I'd use other lossy codecs instead of other MP3 codecs, because for me lame 3.90.2 is still the best one of all (of course 3.90.3 is for you better).

Musepack MPC (MPPENC) is my favorite alternate lossy codec.

I don't think there will be much better lame versions than 3.90.3 or 3.96.1...


--------------------
FB2K,APE&LAME
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Synthetic Soul
post Mar 10 2005, 11:24
Post #23





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 4887
Joined: 12-August 04
From: Exeter, UK
Member No.: 16217



QUOTE (memomai @ Mar 9 2005, 04:52 PM)
I still use Lame 3.90.2, I think 3.97a7 is very good, too, and at least 3.90.3 of course.

Otherwise I'd use other lossy codecs instead of other MP3 codecs, because for me lame 3.90.2 is still the best one of all (of course 3.90.3 is for you better).

I don't think there will be much better lame versions than 3.90.3 or 3.96.1...

I can't decide whether you are joking or not... so much paradox...

If you think 3.97a7 is very good why do you not think 3.97 will be better than 3.96.1?


--------------------
I'm on a horse.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
kotrtim
post Mar 10 2005, 16:54
Post #24





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



voted for LAME 3.96

QUOTE
I don't think there will be much better lame versions than 3.90.3 or 3.96.1...


the world is improving.....many things are possible, i don't it's impossible to improve LAME

if LAME team release 3.97 i will definitely go for it!
3.97 is FAST
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Acid Orange Juic...
post Mar 11 2005, 08:01
Post #25





Group: Banned
Posts: 69
Joined: 16-February 05
Member No.: 19879



QUOTE (QuantumKnot @ Mar 8 2005, 06:54 AM)
The only mp3 encoding I do nowadays is for video.  Since speed is mostly my concern in this instance, I'm using the Xing 1.5 encoder  blush.gif  ph34r.gif
*


I use Lame 3.96.1 for my personal use; but, from time to time for share some file with my friends I use the mp3 encoder from Audio Catalyst v2.0 tongue.gif laugh.gif
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: 24th November 2014 - 17:50