Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Which codec do you use?
post Oct 28 2001, 15:31
Post #51

Group: Members
Posts: 157
Joined: 21-October 01
From: Belgium
Member No.: 332

In the case of M$ there's also the factor "blatant stupidity of the IBM people". If they had played their card rights at least OS/2 would have still been around in an "active way" (now it's a bit marginalised)
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
post Oct 28 2001, 21:20
Post #52

Group: Members
Posts: 1
Joined: 22-October 01
Member No.: 336

I was happy enough to start with a trial copy of Audiograbber (56 kbps ugh....) making me look for "free MP3 encoder" the next instant. That search landed me on r3mix, and made me appreciate at least higher quality sounds.
I'm currently using Lame MP3 (R3mix), MPC -standard and - extreme and OGG 160 kbps , though I think about switching everything to OGG 160 for space reasons (maybe even 128, my hearing is not too good, I'm too scared to test frequency response sad.gif )
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
post Oct 29 2001, 04:56
Post #53

Group: Members
Posts: 773
Joined: 23-October 01
From: USA
Member No.: 340

i use mpc.... mainly because it uses very little cpu (for playing at least) and the quality is extremely good... if not the best (i suppose thats quite debatable)....... also there actually is quite a bit of music out there just gotta know where to look (email me or msg me or something and ill tell you... this really isnt the place to say)....

anyways yes i have tried ogg and aac and everythign

mpc is more complete than ogg (as far as stages of developments) its more stable than aac (at least in my experience) and its higher quality than mp3....

feel free to argue...


Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
post Oct 29 2001, 10:41
Post #54

Group: Members
Posts: 21
Joined: 27-October 01
From: Stockholm
Member No.: 360

I'm using Ogg for most of my music. The 128kbit/s preset works better than mp3, without taking that much more size. The encoder also works pretty fast, which is important to me.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
post Nov 26 2001, 01:51
Post #55

Group: Members
Posts: 88
Joined: 14-November 01
Member No.: 459

I started a long while back with l3enc at 128.
For a while, I played with VQF, but eventually decided it just wasn't that good (and far too slow).
When MpegPlus first came out, I tested that for a while, but decided compatibility won out.

Then I got my hands on lame, and started using that (still at 128kbps... shame on me).

I started experimenting with vorbis at beta 2, and around beta 4 I started encoding more and more at 160kbps.

These days, I have completely transitioned from mp3 to vorbis, at 160kbps using garf's tuned encoder #2.

Oh, and I use EAC for ripping, it is all good.

Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
post Nov 26 2001, 13:56
Post #56

ReplayGain developer

Group: Developer
Posts: 5653
Joined: 5-November 01
From: Yorkshire, UK
Member No.: 409

I was the sinner who voted "mp3 FhG" in the poll. Yes, that "1" was me!

It's great to go against the flow! ;-)

But I have to confess that I've used --alt-preset normal for my last encoding and been very pleased. It's just I don't always have three hours to encode an album (PII 300MHz).

I can neither share mpc, nor play it on my portable hardware (which I don't even own yet, but it's on my Christmas list! ;-)). So it's not even an option.

Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
post Nov 26 2001, 14:36
Post #57

Group: Members
Posts: 56
Joined: 25-November 01
Member No.: 536

Try using the --r3mix preset to encode with Lame. It's not as good quality as Dibrom's, but it encodes very quickly (about an hour per full CD on my P2/233) and the quality is still very good.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
post Nov 26 2001, 14:42
Post #58

Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 916
Joined: 30-September 01
From: Berlin, Germany
Member No.: 112

I guess David knows about the --r3mix preset, gutzalpus wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
post Nov 28 2001, 11:04
Post #59

Group: Members
Posts: 29
Joined: 16-October 01
From: Serbia
Member No.: 304

I use Ogg Vorbis/Garf's tuned -b350 mode. The quality is excellent (definitely better then MP3 320kbps) and the bitrate is acceptable - it varies between 300-320kbps most of the time. Also, with Vorbis you get flexible tagging system (unlike ID3), and gapless songs work flawlessly.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
post Nov 28 2001, 12:39
Post #60

Group: Members
Posts: 27
Joined: 1-October 01
Member No.: 144

My requirements are probably vastly different from most in this thread. I restore the material from very old phonograph records, dating as far back as the very first records. I exchange this material with others via e-mail attachments. Most of the recipients use 56K modems.

I am concerned with quality but quality is limited in this old material. I want quality versus small file size. MP3 at low bit rates wasn't satisfactory. VQF and WMA were satisfactory. But I feel the need to support the Ogg Vorbis project and my results have been more than satisfactory - good quality vs small file size.

I am elderly and I'm sure my hearing is deficient. I have a decent amp and speakers on my PC and I like what I hear with Ogg! I'm not in a position to evaluate the results of my work other than by using my ears. I've been using the RC2 Drag & drop encoder and am anxiously awaiting a later release.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Neo Neko
post Dec 7 2001, 08:44
Post #61

Group: Banned
Posts: 386
Joined: 5-December 01
Member No.: 589

I am undoubtedly a Vorbis freak in every way. I have compressed 300+ CDs to high bitrate Vorbis and I am quite happy with em. Not to mention 20+ divx avi clips with vorbis audio. I had to rework nandub a bit to pull that off. biggrin.gif Granted I have an MP3 player(sans firmware update option.sad.gif ) But I use it less and less now that I have my laptop. Only on long trips or times I can't have the good ole LT with me do I actually mess with the MP3 player. If I want lossless encoding I will keep the stuff PCM encoded on the CDs. But if I want compressed stuff to play on my PC Vorbis is king for me! In fact I am listening to a Vorbis encode of a Saint Etienne track right now and must say that it rocks!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
post Dec 13 2001, 09:55
Post #62

Group: Members
Posts: 62
Joined: 10-December 01
Member No.: 621

hehe when i had my pentium 75 it was l3enc. ugh took around 1 hour to encode at 128kbit. then audiocatalyst with xing. then i got into lame at 3.70 time. i have used mpc and ogg, but im sticking with lame 3.90 rev7 and monkeys audio. im using winamp + MAD decoder and a compaq ipaq pocket pc 3630 with a 1 gig ibm microdrive and a rio volt for portable playing.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
post Dec 13 2001, 15:57
Post #63

Group: Members
Posts: 158
Joined: 6-December 01
From: Poland
Member No.: 601

I have started encoding using some MPlifier. Then I learned what an 'artifact' sounds like (on some Pink Floyd track). But I wasn't concerned much about MP3 back then. Then Came Xing's Audiocatalyst (damn' it was fast). Then I have found about LAME, played around with non-tuned GPSYCHO VBR (--vbr-new -V3 -ms) and --r3mix. Then I've found this site and it convinced me to switching to --dm-preset (now --alt-preset). I have some portable MP3 player, so MPC od AAC are both of no interest for me, but --alt-prset standard (rev7) sounds great for me now.
Good Job, Dibrom -thank you!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3
Reply to this 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: 5th October 2015 - 02:47