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

11 Pages V  « < 4 5 6 7 8 > »   
Closed TopicStart new topic
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?, Format popularity
What codec do you use predominately in your collection?
What codec do you use predominately in your collection?
MP3 [ 447 ] ** [46.04%]
Ogg Vorbis [ 266 ] ** [27.39%]
MP4-AAC [ 123 ] ** [12.67%]
MPC [ 94 ] ** [9.68%]
WMA [ 13 ] ** [1.34%]
Other [ 28 ] ** [2.88%]
Total Votes: 1166
  
damaki
post Apr 8 2006, 13:44
Post #126





Group: Members
Posts: 143
Joined: 13-July 03
From: Paris, France
Member No.: 7740



No change for me so far : wavpack lossy for regular use and mp3 for my ipod.


--------------------
Stupidity is root of all evil.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
NeDtHeOnE
post Apr 8 2006, 13:46
Post #127





Group: Members
Posts: 36
Joined: 2-March 06
From: Mangalore
Member No.: 28197



QUOTE (krmathis @ Apr 8 2006, 05:01 PM) *
The few times I encode to a lossy format I use AAC.
First of all because its available out-of-the-box in my favorite audio player, Apple iTunes. But also because its one of the best lossy encoders out there.


READ THIS!

Comparison between all lossy Format

Eveything is said over here! About the LEADER IN AUDIO LOSSY COMPRESSION! VORBIS...


--------------------
The virtue of love isnt finding the perfect person, but by loving the imperfect person perfectly.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
krmathis
post Apr 8 2006, 14:04
Post #128





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



NeDtHeOnE. Are you serious? ohmy.gif
The article you point to is over 3 1/2 years old. "Posted on Sun Sep 8th, 2002 at 11:47:02 PM GMT"

Nothing wrong with Ogg Vorbis, but its no option for an iPod user like me.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
NeDtHeOnE
post Apr 8 2006, 14:11
Post #129





Group: Members
Posts: 36
Joined: 2-March 06
From: Mangalore
Member No.: 28197



QUOTE (krmathis @ Apr 8 2006, 06:34 PM) *
NeDtHeOnE. Are you serious? ohmy.gif
The article you point to is over 3 1/2 years old. "Posted on Sun Sep 8th, 2002 at 11:47:02 PM GMT"

Nothing wrong with Ogg Vorbis, but its no option for an iPod user like me.



Yeah ... U can go with your lossy codec

But its true , even the latest comparisons ...(had seen it somewhere) show that .. AoTuV b4.51 leads @ most of the bitrates...


--------------------
The virtue of love isnt finding the perfect person, but by loving the imperfect person perfectly.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
senab
post Apr 8 2006, 14:19
Post #130





Group: Members
Posts: 247
Joined: 4-August 05
From: Birmingham, UK
Member No.: 23690



I'm a Vorbis fan, have been since I start using Aoyumi's tunings. My first DAP was the Rio Karma, so it made sense to use Vorbis becuase of it's patchy LAME gapless playback. Now I've got a 30gb iPod with Rockbox on and it works like a charm biggrin.gif


--------------------
::.. www.senab.co.uk
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
krmathis
post Apr 8 2006, 14:20
Post #131





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



NeDtHeOnE. You missed the most important part of my original post! wink.gif
"The few times I encode to a lossy format I use AAC."
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
shadowking
post Apr 8 2006, 14:31
Post #132





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



QUOTE (NeDtHeOnE @ Apr 8 2006, 05:11 AM) *
QUOTE (krmathis @ Apr 8 2006, 06:34 PM) *

NeDtHeOnE. Are you serious? ohmy.gif
The article you point to is over 3 1/2 years old. "Posted on Sun Sep 8th, 2002 at 11:47:02 PM GMT"

Nothing wrong with Ogg Vorbis, but its no option for an iPod user like me.



Yeah ... U can go with your lossy codec

But its true , even the latest comparisons ...(had seen it somewhere) show that .. AoTuV b4.51 leads @ most of the bitrates...


Some people are nuts thinking that vorbis / aac is immune to problem samples. Get real, maybe at 500kbps but at 192k there will be some limited samples. I remember a year or so ago people were finding problems for q6 or more regularly. So use what you will but there is no need to claim superiority at high bitrates when all codecs are close.


--------------------
Wavpack -b450
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
NeDtHeOnE
post Apr 8 2006, 19:35
Post #133





Group: Members
Posts: 36
Joined: 2-March 06
From: Mangalore
Member No.: 28197



QUOTE (shadowking @ Apr 8 2006, 07:01 PM) *
QUOTE (NeDtHeOnE @ Apr 8 2006, 05:11 AM) *

QUOTE (krmathis @ Apr 8 2006, 06:34 PM) *

NeDtHeOnE. Are you serious? ohmy.gif
The article you point to is over 3 1/2 years old. "Posted on Sun Sep 8th, 2002 at 11:47:02 PM GMT"

Nothing wrong with Ogg Vorbis, but its no option for an iPod user like me.



Yeah ... U can go with your lossy codec

But its true , even the latest comparisons ...(had seen it somewhere) show that .. AoTuV b4.51 leads @ most of the bitrates...


Some people are nuts thinking that vorbis / aac is immune to problem samples. Get real, maybe at 500kbps but at 192k there will be some limited samples. I remember a year or so ago people were finding problems for q6 or more regularly. So use what you will but there is no need to claim superiority at high bitrates when all codecs are close.


laugh.gif

It is true that @ Higher bitrates all are very similar but not BETTER than Vorbis.

And at Low Bitrates Vorbis rules. Specially @ -q 2 ! For LAME MP3 to be Descent enough You
have to rip @ 192 vbr ... But for Vorbis .. q4 is MORE than enough


--------------------
The virtue of love isnt finding the perfect person, but by loving the imperfect person perfectly.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
johnsonlam
post Apr 8 2006, 19:52
Post #134





Group: Members
Posts: 226
Joined: 12-January 03
From: Kowloon, Hong Kong
Member No.: 4533



Still using MP3!

Waiting a few years for OGG Vorbis hardware, but disappointed. I got a FrontierLabs NEX II and NEX IA, both of them announced "may support OGG by firmware upgrade" but in vain.

I don't want to bring a hard disk outdoor, a CF or SD is a better alternative.

This post has been edited by johnsonlam: Apr 8 2006, 19:53


--------------------
Hong Kong - International Joke Center (after 1997-06-30)
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Triza
post Apr 8 2006, 21:03
Post #135





Group: Members
Posts: 367
Joined: 16-November 03
Member No.: 9867



iAudio has plenty flash-based player that might suit you. Few of them has Vorbis support.

Triza

QUOTE (johnsonlam @ Apr 8 2006, 10:52 AM) *
Still using MP3!

Waiting a few years for OGG Vorbis hardware, but disappointed. I got a FrontierLabs NEX II and NEX IA, both of them announced "may support OGG by firmware upgrade" but in vain.

I don't want to bring a hard disk outdoor, a CF or SD is a better alternative.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
smok3
post Apr 8 2006, 21:09
Post #136


A/V Moderator


Group: Moderator
Posts: 1727
Joined: 30-April 02
From: Slovenia
Member No.: 1922



QUOTE
It is true that @ Higher bitrates all are very similar but not BETTER than Vorbis.
prove it.


--------------------
PANIC: CPU 1: Cache Error (unrecoverable - dcache data) Eframe = 0x90000000208cf3b8
NOTICE - cpu 0 didn't dump TLB, may be hung
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
vinnie97
post Apr 8 2006, 22:12
Post #137





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



I don't think it's possible to prove what is *not* the case (i.e. that God doesn't exist), only what can be verified scentifically...maybe if you rephrased it. "Prove that Vorbis is inferior to other codecs at high bitrates," which, less face it, is also hard to do....especially when there is already evidence from the likes of Guru that Vorbis is king near 200 kbps....
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
naylor83
post Apr 8 2006, 22:59
Post #138





Group: Members
Posts: 204
Joined: 19-June 05
From: Uppsala, Sweden
Member No.: 22842



QUOTE (vinnie97 @ Apr 8 2006, 11:12 PM) *
I don't think it's possible to prove what is *not* the case (i.e. that God doesn't exist), only what can be verified scentifically...maybe if you rephrased it. "Prove that Vorbis is inferior to other codecs at high bitrates," which, less face it, is also hard to do....especially when there is already evidence from the likes of Guru that Vorbis is king near 200 kbps....


Well, without getting too philosophical here, you can start testing from say 64 kbps, all formats against each other and then move on up through the bitrates. You'll most likely find that Vorbis is on top all the way from 64 kbps to 160 kbps. At ~192 kbps I think you'd be very hard pressed not to score all contestants 5.0s.

The conclusions you would probably draw from such a test would be that Vorbis and AAC become transparent at roughly 140 kbps (depending on how well trained your ears are, of course) and MP3 and WMA need something like 192 kbps to become transparent.

In other words, saying that one format is better than an other at a high bitrate such as 192 kbps is pointless, unless you can actually hear a difference. (Hey there, bat-ears!) However, we can presume that the formats which for most music are transparent already at ~140 kbps will have fewer "problem samples" at 192 than those formats which for music in general become transparent at 192.


--------------------
davidnaylor.org

Vorbis Q4, please. AoTuv b5, preferably.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
vinnie97
post Apr 8 2006, 23:35
Post #139





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



good points!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
stephanV
post Apr 9 2006, 11:57
Post #140





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



Not really good points. At the last listening test all contestants were tied at 128 kbps, and all scored an average above 4.5. So making a generalized statement that MP3 is worse than Vorbis or AAC at 128 kbps is plain false without backing this up with your own listening test. Besides a few problem samples, you will be hard pressed to find any real disturbing differences at 128 kbps.

I use Vorbis BTW.

This post has been edited by stephanV: Apr 9 2006, 12:07


--------------------
"We cannot win against obsession. They care, we don't. They win."
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Maglor
post Apr 9 2006, 12:56
Post #141





Group: Members
Posts: 24
Joined: 14-July 04
From: VN Gaia
Member No.: 15455



dry.gif I seem to to be the only one in here that has about 2000 albums all in WMA at 192Kbps. Do I seem stupid? Well, I may very well be one. But all I know is that not even with Lame can MP3 at the same Bitrate be better than WMA... tested. Any doubts? But I would love to have a Terabyte or two to have this 2000 albums or more on Lossless, because I have an iAudio X5 that can read Flac. And if not that Terabyte solution, then a DAP that can read MPC, and I would very gladly trash the entire collection and have it ripped again, only in MPC.
Cheers! wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
windmiller
post Apr 9 2006, 13:45
Post #142





Group: Members
Posts: 205
Joined: 6-March 04
From: Chapel Hill, NC
Member No.: 12500



I switched to Ogg when I got my girlfriend a iRiver H320. Once Rockbox is completed for the H320 we will move to lossless only...cant wait! I am tired of having duplicates for mobility.

This post has been edited by windmiller: Apr 9 2006, 13:46


--------------------
www.losslessaudioblog.com
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
sony666
post Apr 9 2006, 16:07
Post #143





Group: Members
Posts: 573
Joined: 22-February 02
Member No.: 1375



lame mp3 until there is a tuned, reliable and free commandline encoder for aac.
LAAC.. Lame ain't an AAC enCoder

I'm not going to settle for Nero or iTunes or whatever
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
jmartis
post Apr 9 2006, 19:33
Post #144





Group: Members
Posts: 381
Joined: 9-April 06
From: Czech Republic
Member No.: 29311



wavpack lossy @350kbps for archiving purposes; mp3@Lame(preset standard) for my portable player
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
de Mon
post Apr 9 2006, 20:36
Post #145





Group: Members
Posts: 474
Joined: 1-December 02
Member No.: 3940



QUOTE (Maglor @ Apr 9 2006, 03:56 AM) *
dry.gif I seem to to be the only one in here that has about 2000 albums all in WMA at 192Kbps. Do I seem stupid? Well, I may very well be one. But all I know is that not even with Lame can MP3 at the same Bitrate be better than WMA... tested.


blink.gif
I would like to see these tests. cool.gif


--------------------
Ogg Vorbis for music and speech [q-2.0 - q6.0]
FLAC for recordings to be edited
Speex for speech
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Supacon
post Apr 9 2006, 20:43
Post #146





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 543
Joined: 19-March 04
From: Alberta, Canada
Member No.: 12841



QUOTE (jmartis @ Apr 9 2006, 12:33 PM) *
wavpack lossy @350kbps for archiving purposes; mp3@Lame(preset standard) for my portable player


Isn't WavPack kinda bad at 350? Er... for transcoding purposes at least? It seems to me that >384 was the magic number.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
skelly831
post Apr 9 2006, 21:23
Post #147





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 782
Joined: 11-April 05
From: México
Member No.: 21361



QUOTE (sony666 @ Apr 9 2006, 08:07 AM) *
lame mp3 until there is a tuned, reliable and free commandline encoder for aac.
LAAC.. Lame ain't an AAC enCoder

I'm not going to settle for Nero or iTunes or whatever

Why not, the iTunes encoder is reliable and free, and can be used as a commandline encoder thru iTunesEncode. The only inconvenience is you have to have iTunes installed.


--------------------
we was young an' full of beans
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
AtaqueEG
post Apr 9 2006, 22:19
Post #148





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 1336
Joined: 18-November 01
From: Celaya, Guanajuato
Member No.: 478



QUOTE (windmiller @ Apr 9 2006, 06:45 AM) *
I switched to Ogg when I got my girlfriend a iRiver H320. Once Rockbox is completed for the H320 we will move to lossless only...cant wait! I am tired of having duplicates for mobility.


Not that you could hear a difference or anything... wink.gif


--------------------
I'm the one in the picture, sitting on a giant cabbage in Mexico, circa 1978.
Reseñas de Rock en Español: www.estadogeneral.com
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
shadowking
post Apr 10 2006, 00:44
Post #149





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



QUOTE (Supacon @ Apr 9 2006, 11:43 AM) *
QUOTE (jmartis @ Apr 9 2006, 12:33 PM) *

wavpack lossy @350kbps for archiving purposes; mp3@Lame(preset standard) for my portable player


Isn't WavPack kinda bad at 350? Er... for transcoding purposes at least? It seems to me that >384 was the magic number.


There isn't a magic number and bitrates are not really affecting transcoding - at least in my tests. You just go for transparent bitrates (>300k) and 350k is already hitting full transparency.


--------------------
Wavpack -b450
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Mr_Rabid_Teddybe...
post Apr 10 2006, 01:09
Post #150





Group: Members
Posts: 1197
Joined: 3-September 03
From: Bergen, Norway
Member No.: 8667



Vorbis. Everthing I own can play Vorbis (well, not my fridge), it's transparent at spacesaving bitrates, it's naturally gapless and got a good and singular tagging system. And almost all decoders support replaygain.


--------------------
"ONLY THOSE WHO ATTEMPT THE IMPOSSIBLE WILL ACHIEVE THE ABSURD"
- Oceania Association of Autonomous Astronauts
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

11 Pages V  « < 4 5 6 7 8 > » 
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 - 07:18