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  « < 5 6 7 8 9 > »   
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
  
vinnie97
post Apr 10 2006, 06:13
Post #151





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



QUOTE (stephanV @ Apr 9 2006, 02:57 AM) *
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.

okok.....virtually tied with the margin of error ensuring no one opponent being crowned the clear winner...but the graph is still the most prevalent in one's mind post listening test and private listening tests have confirmed this superiority around 180 kbps in the realm of classical where it previously performed poorly:

Not exactly a smoking gun but certainly something not to be brushed aside.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
stephanV
post Apr 10 2006, 08:48
Post #152





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



One private listening test (conducted by someone with very good ears) is not indicative for the most of us. And even here Vorbis is not 'king' like you said before.

Let's just face it, we thankfully have arrived in an era where the quality of a lossy encoder does not necessarily has to be our biggest concern in making a choice of them anymore.

This post has been edited by stephanV: Apr 10 2006, 08:54


--------------------
"We cannot win against obsession. They care, we don't. They win."
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
vinnie97
post Apr 10 2006, 10:15
Post #153





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



You're correct...for the rest of us without "bat ears," differentiating at such bitrates would be nigh to impossible. I'm just pointing out trends as of late. It was only a year prior to the above test in 2004 that Vorbis was performing comparatively poorly in Guru's tests.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
GeSomeone
post Apr 10 2006, 10:54
Post #154





Group: Members
Posts: 922
Joined: 22-October 01
From: the Netherlands
Member No.: 335



In the past I chose Musepack as (prefered) lossy codec for personal use (as I use no portable wink.gif ). It is still OK, but it is going the way of the dinosaurs. bye2.gif
Because I see no reason (yet) to redo the existing collection in another lossy format, the major lossy part is still mpc. Also I find myself not adding as much music to my collection as I did some years ago.
These days I lean more to lossless, also LAME would rank quite high as my choice for new lossy codings now.


--------------------
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
user
post Apr 10 2006, 10:59
Post #155





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



MPC --quality 8 --ms 15 --xlevel
as PC/laptop and DVD space saver, small-sized backup of my Lossless archive.

MP3-Lame -V5 --vbr-new
for my portable USB 1 GB stick, running outdoors, car stereo.


and to complete:
Lossless as archive & HiFi PC listening
formerly Flac and WavPack -x -m
now Flac -8 -V , as Flac is already supported in various HiFi hardware, which is less and more uncertain regarding wavpack unfortunately.

So I have 3 encodes (made as 1 step automatic process by Mareo.exe during EAC ripping) of each album on 3 different DVDs,
Lossless ca. 600 - 1000 kbit/s
MPC ca. 280 kbit/s
MP3 ca. 128 - 140 kbit/s
and feel safe to never rerip again smile.gif

This post has been edited by user: Apr 10 2006, 11:15


--------------------
www.High-Quality.ch.vu -- High Quality Audio Archiving Tutorials
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Ivan Dimkovic
post Apr 10 2006, 11:02
Post #156


Nero MPEG4 developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 1466
Joined: 22-September 01
Member No.: 8



QUOTE
okok.....virtually tied with the margin of error ensuring no one opponent being crowned the clear winner...but the graph is still the most prevalent in one's mind post listening test and private listening tests have confirmed this superiority around 180 kbps in the realm of classical where it previously performed poorly:


Nero encoder used in that test is quite obsolete - latest Nero encoder (used in Sebastian's 128 kbps listening test, however with a bug that is fixed now) and Vorbis were quite tied.

I hope Guru will do a new higher bit rate listening test sometimes - I am quite sure the quality picture has been changed compared to the last year.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
vinnie97
post Apr 10 2006, 11:12
Post #157





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



maybe he will in August 2006...and I'm sure the results will make it even more difficult to pick a favorite. wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
hödyr
post Apr 10 2006, 18:01
Post #158





Group: Members
Posts: 135
Joined: 26-January 02
Member No.: 1171



I have been using Musepack ever since the year 2000. Now that development has stopped and other codecs as AAC and Vorbis (and even MP3) catch up in quality i'm thinking about switching to another format. What is important to me are several features MPC has:
- native gapless playback (bybye AAC...)
- replaygain support
- high quality

From my POV the latest aoTuV oggenc features all this, plus it's free. There's just something I couldn't find by googling: Is replaygain just something most players feature, or is it explicitly mentioned in the Vorbis spec? I wonder if replaygain will work in mobile players or car stereos that support Vorbis.


--------------------
Blubb
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
picmixer
post Apr 10 2006, 18:25
Post #159





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



QUOTE (hödyr @ Apr 10 2006, 06:01 PM) *
- native gapless playback (bybye AAC...)
- replaygain support


Nero AAC, Vorbis and LAME mp3 are all natively support gapless playback. Of course only if the player or decoder also supports this properly.

The same basically goes for replaygain. Although in the case of AAC and MP3 it is not natively supported by the command line encoders and decoders. Depends if that matters to you I guess.

This post has been edited by picmixer: Apr 10 2006, 18:28
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
dev0
post Apr 10 2006, 18:39
Post #160





Group: Developer
Posts: 1679
Joined: 23-December 01
From: Germany
Member No.: 731



MP3. Quality and features are not an issue when using -V2 or higher and proper tagging.


--------------------
"To understand me, you'll have to swallow a world." Or maybe your words.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dzamburu
post Apr 10 2006, 21:33
Post #161





Group: Banned
Posts: 56
Joined: 9-April 06
Member No.: 29317



Nero/CT AAC and Lame becouse very good encoders for all situations.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
jorsol
post Apr 11 2006, 01:50
Post #162





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



QUOTE
Nero/CT AAC and Lame becouse very good encoders for all situations.
And Vorbis too. cool.gif

I really belive that if LAME don't exist, Vorbis probably will have the most votes, that for sure... well that and the fact that MP3 has been more than 10 years arround and because of that is a standard de facto.


--------------------
JorSol
aoTuVb5 -q4
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ezra2323
post Apr 11 2006, 02:34
Post #163





Group: Members
Posts: 586
Joined: 17-July 02
Member No.: 2631



What can I say? AAC VBR 128 on my iPod(s) sounds great. Simple to encode via iTunes and small file size to boot. It's my codec of choice for 2006. No problems with MP3 though - LAME rocks! Still burn MP3 CDs for the car from time to time. -V4 vbr new.

All archives are ALAC on DVD via EAC and iTunes encode.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Firon
post Apr 11 2006, 02:50
Post #164





Group: Members
Posts: 830
Joined: 3-November 05
Member No.: 25526



hödyr: Vorbis and ReplayGain are two separate things. RG support is even less common than Vorbis support (and non-existant on hardware players, unless Rockbox supports it). It's just a tag for a RG-enabled player to know how much to scale the volume by.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Supacon
post Apr 11 2006, 03:45
Post #165





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



Yeh, ReplayGain is virtually useless outside of Foobar. I wish Winamp (and also some DJ software) supported it natively.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
DreamTactix291
post Apr 11 2006, 05:42
Post #166





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



QUOTE (Firon @ Apr 10 2006, 07:50 PM) *
hödyr: Vorbis and ReplayGain are two separate things. RG support is even less common than Vorbis support (and non-existant on hardware players, unless Rockbox supports it). It's just a tag for a RG-enabled player to know how much to scale the volume by.
Rockbox does support ReplayGain in tags for just about everything it plays including Vorbis. But comparatively to the amount of devices in the world support is very low.


--------------------
Nero AAC 1.5.1.0: -q0.45
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ffooky
post Apr 11 2006, 09:07
Post #167





Group: Members
Posts: 261
Joined: 8-July 04
Member No.: 15184



iTunes/QT AAC VBR 160 for my iPod. I use iTunesJoin for gapless live shows etc. which is basically a front end for chapter tool.

FLAC for archives, converted to AAC when needed with Toast 7.0.2, tagged with Media Rage/iTunes.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Triza
post Apr 11 2006, 15:45
Post #168





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



QUOTE (hödyr @ Apr 10 2006, 09:01 AM) *
Is replaygain just something most players feature, or is it explicitly mentioned in the Vorbis spec? I wonder if replaygain will work in mobile players or car stereos that support Vorbis.


Sadly Monty excluded replaygain from the vorbis standard. I saw a thread about the whole debate. This in my view was a big mistake. I personally would be very much surprised if any portable or non-PC solution would support the de facto standard replaygain tags. Hence I convert my FLAC onto Ogg Vorbis using the secret and not lossless (!) --apply-replaygain-which-is-not-lossless FLAC option, which in effect waivegains the decoded signal and I encode this into Ogg Vorbis
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
jmartis
post Apr 11 2006, 19:35
Post #169





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



QUOTE (Supacon @ Apr 9 2006, 09:43 PM) *
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.


i dont think so.. even at 300kbps i wasnt able to distinguish it from original; so i already have some headroom smile.gif at 250 i was actually able to hear a little added noise (i know waveform comparsions arent quite accepted here but at 350 (320) it least differs from the original when compared w/ other lossy encoders)

edit- i am using the "high quality" option, which lowers a little the quantization noise

This post has been edited by jmartis: Apr 11 2006, 19:40
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Supacon
post Apr 12 2006, 20:19
Post #170





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



Okay... I just remember Bryant once saying that 384 kb/s in Wavpack should be transparent, so that's where I got this notion that you'd have to use a bitrate higher than that.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
pepoluan
post Apr 12 2006, 20:44
Post #171





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



QUOTE (Supacon @ Apr 11 2006, 09:45 AM) *
Yeh, ReplayGain is virtually useless outside of Foobar. I wish Winamp (and also some DJ software) supported it natively.
IIRC WinAmp 5 supports ReplayGain, depending on the input plugin. The input plugins that come with WinAmp 5 all support RG.

Edit: There are lots of players that now support ReplayGain. See the HA Wiki page for ReplayGain.

This post has been edited by pepoluan: Apr 12 2006, 20:46


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

http://pandu.poluan.info
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
vinnie97
post Apr 12 2006, 23:53
Post #172





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



The MPC contigent is still managing to hold onto their lead over MP4 by a thread.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
kwanbis
post Apr 13 2006, 00:25
Post #173





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



QUOTE (vinnie97 @ Apr 12 2006, 10:53 PM) *
The MPC contigent is still managing to hold onto their lead over MP4 by a thread.

yes ... and they have been by Vorbis.


--------------------
MAREO: http://www.webearce.com.ar
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Seymour
post Apr 13 2006, 00:34
Post #174





Group: Members
Posts: 10
Joined: 6-February 05
From: Russia
Member No.: 19634



mpc (Musepack) for home collection (-q 5)
AAC for low-bitrate mobile music listening; mp3 (lame of course) for ringer tone (my SE K700i can't use AAC for this)
mp3 again for portable player (bitrate is low because of environment noise)
and no lossless at all tongue.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Supacon
post Apr 13 2006, 00:39
Post #175





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



QUOTE (pepoluan @ Apr 12 2006, 01:44 PM) *
IIRC WinAmp 5 supports ReplayGain, depending on the input plugin. The input plugins that come with WinAmp 5 all support RG.

Edit: There are lots of players that now support ReplayGain. See the HA Wiki page for ReplayGain.


Uhm... that's news to me... is there any way of verifying this from Within WinAMP? It seems like my replaygained tracks all sound like different volumes when played in WinAMP.

They all usually sound quite a bit louder than my music videos, in any case.

[edit]
This forum thread in WinAmp's forums seems to contradict your statement pepoluan.
http://forums.winamp.com/showthread.php?threadid=234302

This post has been edited by Supacon: Apr 13 2006, 00:46
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

11 Pages V  « < 5 6 7 8 9 > » 
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: 2nd October 2014 - 18:03