Skip to main content

Poll

The best to you is???

  • LossLess Audio
    5 (3%)
  • Monkey's Audio
    52 (31.3%)
  • FLAC
    90 (54.2%)
  • PAC
    1 (0.6%)
  • OptimFrog
    2 (1.2%)
  • WavPack
    9 (5.4%)
  • RKAudio
    0 (0%)
  • WMAudio
    5 (3%)
  • Bonk
    0 (0%)
  • Shorten
    2 (1.2%)

Total Members Voted: 247

Topic: Lossless Codecs (Read 16566 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • Sniffer
  • [*][*]
Lossless Codecs
I really want to Know your opinion, i decided to make this Poll because all i have seen regarding lossless is between Flac and APE, althought i have been searching around and LA gives the better compression, why don't you use it instead of FLAC or APE, I know Flac gives other features but..........


One question, with Foobar we can apply replaygain in all formats, don't we???

Thanks for your time.

  • gutzalpus
  • [*][*]
Lossless Codecs
Reply #1
LA has great compression ratios, but is WAY too slow at compressing/decompressing.  I might switch over to it once CPUs hit about 10GHz.

Lossless Codecs
Reply #2
Where can I take a look or get LA?
AMD T-Bird 1400
Abit KT7A Raid
2 WD 40g @ 7200rpm raid 0
1 Maxtor 30g @7200rpm
1.5gb pc133
GeForce FX-5200
Creative Audigy 2
Cendyne 24x10x40 cdrw
Toshiba DVD 16X
Thermalright AX7

  • Sniffer
  • [*][*]
Lossless Codecs
Reply #3
www.lossless-audio.com


For me the best and i have take some comparations test's.


Update:

La is supported by

XMMS (Linux)
Winamp (WIN32)
Foobar (WIN32)


You need net.framework (update windows) for LA to work.

Update 2:

Quote
LA has great compression ratios, but is WAY too slow at compressing/decompressing. I might switch over to it once CPUs hit about 10GHz.



They will, they will.....3.200GHZ so far
  • Last Edit: 08 August, 2003, 07:22:37 AM by Sniffer

  • Mac
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Lossless Codecs
Reply #4
I tested LA out, and it gave noticably bigger files than APE extra high.  This was on non-standard samples of audio, not regular songs..    but seeing as that's one of the main things I encode, I wasn't impressed.

Also, it is so slooooow on a 1.8ghz machine
< w o g o n e . c o m / l o l >

  • mdmuir
  • [*][*][*]
  • Members (Donating)
Lossless Codecs
Reply #5
My question is-why is shorten so popular on live band recording websites?

I know it encodes and decodes fast, but in my experience it is one of the worst when it comes to final file size. Is it just because they started with it and do not want to switch to something else?
you will make mp3's for compatibility reasons.

  • rjamorim
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Lossless Codecs
Reply #6
Quote
My question is-why is shorten so popular on live band recording websites?

For the exact same reason MP3 is still popular despite better alternatives.

It's the most widely known and used format.
Get up-to-date binaries of Lame, AAC, Vorbis and much more at RareWares:
http://www.rarewares.org

  • ScorLibran
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Banned
Lossless Codecs
Reply #7
Quote
Quote
My question is-why is shorten so popular on live band recording websites?

For the exact same reason MP3 is still popular despite better alternatives.

It's the most widely known and used format.

Ubiquity definitely has its merits.   

But I prefer FLAC because...

-1-  It's compatible with both of my primary listening platforms, my PC and my car's Music Keg (for which FLAC is the only currently supported compressed lossless format).

-2-  It's open source.  I'm not a software developer, but I do believe in the concept of open source.

-3-  It has good encode/decode performance, which means it can be used on more marginal hardware without problems compared to other formats (which is the reason PhatNoise can support it in their PhatBox/Music Keg with an ARM 74MHz CPU and 32MB of RAM).

-4-  It sounds cool to say "FLAC".  Even cooler than "LA", and definitely cooler than "APE". 

  • LIF
  • [*][*][*]
Lossless Codecs
Reply #8
I use almost exclusively Monkey'sAudio, because:
1-Good compression and speed;
2-EAC, CDex,WinAmp, etc support it;
3-Its the most common format avaliable on the lossless newsgroups;
4-I never had problems wich "bad crc" on archived files.

Days ago, I just made some tests with FLAC, and despite its lower compression, its very usable.
Honor mention must go to WavPack also. Its the fastest one, but it generates files little bigger than Monkey's.

/edit/: Monkeys comes with its own frontend. but I only use the main executable (mac.exe) on Speek's Multifrontend, the Dll(macdll.dll) directly on EAC and in_ape.dll on WinAmp.
  • Last Edit: 08 August, 2003, 11:58:29 PM by LIF
"Jazz washes away the dust of everyday life" (Art Blakey)

  • smack
  • [*][*][*]
Lossless Codecs
Reply #9
LA - Lossless Audio because of the high compression ratio. B)

  • eltoder
  • [*][*][*]
Lossless Codecs
Reply #10
Yet another lossless codecs poll. Cool. 

-Eugene
The  greatest  programming  project of all took six days;  on the seventh  day  the  programmer  rested.  We've been trying to debug the !@#$%&* thing ever since. Moral: design before you implement.

  • _io_
  • [*]
Lossless Codecs
Reply #11
Hate to say this, but i used to use LA until I found that about 1 in 40 of my encoded songs would not decode losslessly, I don't know if this is solely a problem with the LA format or because I used apev2 tags with them, but it put me off using the format.
  • Last Edit: 12 August, 2003, 06:31:19 AM by _io_

Lossless Codecs
Reply #12
Quote
www.lossless-audio.com


For me the best and i have take some comparations test's.


Update:

La is supported by

XMMS (Linux)
Winamp (WIN32)
Foobar (WIN32)


You need net.framework (update windows) for LA to work.

Update 2:

Quote
LA has great compression ratios, but is WAY too slow at compressing/decompressing. I might switch over to it once CPUs hit about 10GHz.



They will, they will.....3.200GHZ so far 

Thank you!
AMD T-Bird 1400
Abit KT7A Raid
2 WD 40g @ 7200rpm raid 0
1 Maxtor 30g @7200rpm
1.5gb pc133
GeForce FX-5200
Creative Audigy 2
Cendyne 24x10x40 cdrw
Toshiba DVD 16X
Thermalright AX7

  • ssamadhi97
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer (Donating)
Lossless Codecs
Reply #13
Quote
My question is-why is shorten so popular on live band recording websites?

I know it encodes and decodes fast, but in my experience it is one of the worst when it comes to final file size. Is it just because they started with it and do not want to switch to something else?

Yes, that's basically it.

It's "The Standard". It has been embraced by the taping / trading communities when they started looking into online trading and distributing and Shorten (initially a voice codec, intended to compress mono speech material and equipped with lossy encoding capabilities) was the only decent, and now that everyone including the less computer savvy people is used to handling SHN files, people are reluctant to switch to alternatives.

FLAC is getting there, being endorsed in addition to Shorten at both etree.org and archive.org, but with many tapers who don't make hi-res recordings sticking to Shorten it doesn't stand much of a chance yet. People are unsure about how to handle the additional features FLAC brings as well, like the fingerprints / stored hashes of the raw pcm data, tagging support, etc.. that's why you won't see a real switch anytime soon.


Shorten's bad performance when it comes to compression ratio can be blamed on the simplistic predictors and lack of inter-channel decorrelation. Then again, those are the very same reasons why both the encoder and the decoder are so fast.


Edit:

I for one use Shorten all the time because I'm stuck in online trading communities as well - and now that it supports ape2 tagging in foobar one of my major beefs with it is gone as well. Disk space isn't really an issue for me.

For my own encoding business I use FLAC or APE, depending on my mood.
  • Last Edit: 12 August, 2003, 07:12:23 AM by ssamadhi97
A riddle is a short sword attached to the next 2000 years.

  • eltoder
  • [*][*][*]
Lossless Codecs
Reply #14
Quote
Hate to say this, but i used to use LA until I found that about 1 in 40 of my encoded songs would not decode losslessly, I don't know if this is solely a problem with the LA format or because I used apev2 tags with them, but it put me off using the format.

Have you reported the bug?

-Eugene
The  greatest  programming  project of all took six days;  on the seventh  day  the  programmer  rested.  We've been trying to debug the !@#$%&* thing ever since. Moral: design before you implement.

  • _io_
  • [*]
Lossless Codecs
Reply #15
I reported a different bug involving the foobar plugin where a particular song would always crash foobar, never heard anything back so I didn't bother with this one, besides  I presumed it was due to me tagging with apev2 when this isn't in the spec.

  • danchr
  • [*][*][*][*]
Lossless Codecs
Reply #16
FLAC - Because It Worksâ„¢

Lossless Codecs
Reply #17
FLAC - because it works in the background on Pentium 100.
ruxvilti'a

  • mcbevin
  • [*]
  • Developer
Lossless Codecs
Reply #18
Just a few comments regarding La ....


Quote
You need net.framework (update windows) for LA to work.


The .NET Framework is only required for the frontend. The commandline program, Winamp plugin etc work without requiring .NET.


Quote
LA has great compression ratios, but is WAY too slow at compressing/decompressing. I might switch over to it once CPUs hit about 10GHz.


La is obviously slower than many of the other compressors. However, that doesn't neccessarily make it too slow for everyones needs. Around 15-20% CPU usage on my AMD-2400+ during playback is not an issue as far as I'm concerned, and even on my P-III 1000 its not an issue unless I'm wanting to do something CPU-intensive at the same time. Not sure I understand the need to wait for 10GHZ - would  having only the remaining 4.6Ghz of a 5Ghz machine available during La playback be not enough for you perhaps?


Quote
i used to use LA until I found that about 1 in 40 of my encoded songs would not decode losslessly


This would be obviuosly a very serious bug if true and I would hope that anyone encountering such bugs would report them to me, along with a copy of the song involved! La has undergone extensive testing, and no such bug has been found in the current version, but that doesn't rule out such possibilities completely, so please do send me one of these problem songs so I can see what the problem is.


Quote
I reported a different bug involving the foobar plugin where a particular song would always crash foobar, never heard anything back so I didn't bother with this one,


I remember one such bug that was reported in La 0.4 beta, and was then fixed a couple of weeks later in La 0.4 final. Is this the one you're referring to?

  • gutzalpus
  • [*][*]
Lossless Codecs
Reply #19
Quote
La is obviously slower than many of the other compressors. However, that doesn't neccessarily make it too slow for everyones needs. Around 15-20% CPU usage on my AMD-2400+ during playback is not an issue as far as I'm concerned, and even on my P-III 1000 its not an issue unless I'm wanting to do something CPU-intensive at the same time. Not sure I understand the need to wait for 10GHZ - would having only the remaining 4.6Ghz of a 5Ghz machine available during La playback be not enough for you perhaps?


Right now, since I'm primarily using a PIII-650, encoding time, decoding time, and playback CPU usage are definitely a concern.  I currently have about 300 CDs encoded in FLAC format.  I wouldn't want to take the time to switch all those over until I can do it  relatively quickly.  Currently the extra space used by FLAC is not much of an issue to me.  I never said LA was too slow for everyone's needs.  However, it is definitely too slow for my needs at this point.

  • den
  • [*][*][*][*]
Lossless Codecs
Reply #20
Wavpack for me.

It's hybrid mode is very useful for me. I can retain lossless at home, and high quality lossy when I am "on the road". (I'm typing this from Manila, but tomorrow I am in Taipei so it must be Tuesday...)

Optifrog is also very good, but it is not the best for the CPU challenged. I am yet to own a PC that can crack 1G.

  • Polar
  • [*][*][*][*]
Lossless Codecs
Reply #21
I really see no point in keeping this poll/thread open and active, if an update is available here. Apparantly, someone has recently cast the 165th vote, even though the mentioned update was well over a week under way, thus distorting these 1 year old results

So: admins, could you please close this poll (just like you did with the old lossy poll in favour of the new one) and perhaps even undo this latest vote?

The August 2004 version has resulted into this (with the 2003 poll results - as frozen to 164 votes - in (grey)):

  • Last Edit: 16 August, 2004, 05:24:09 AM by Polar