Skip to main content

Poll

What codec do you use predominately in your collection?

  • MP3
    447 (46%)
  • Ogg Vorbis    
    266 (27.4%)
  • MP4-AAC    
    123 (12.7%)
  • MPC    
    94 (9.7%)
  • WMA    
    13 (1.3%)
  • Other
    28 (2.9%)

Total Members Voted: 1166

Topic: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006? (Read 141224 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #100
Seems many people here switched from MPC to Vorbis or back to MP3 - Musepack has really become a niche format even in a seperate universe as HA.org is...

  • AtaqueEG
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Members (Donating)
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #101
Lame @ CBR320 for music (this way, mobile use is overkill, but when I play 'em at home on the hi-fi, they still sound respectable), but I publish my podcasts @ -V5 --vbr-new.


Respectable? They should sound exactly like the original (even though they are not, maybe that knowledge is making you think they should sound somewhat "bad")

Oh, and I use MP3. All day, every day. ReplayGain, gapless, tagging, excellent quality at low bitrates, universal compatability, what is not to like?
I'm the one in the picture, sitting on a giant cabbage in Mexico, circa 1978.
Reseñas de Rock en Español: www.estadogeneral.com

  • pepoluan
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #102
losing more ground to mp3, actually.  MP3 = a titan you can't easily bring down.
The keyword is easily. Which is why I am sending letters (in addition to emails) to game producers (Firaxis, EA, LucasFilm) to have them support Vorbis, trumpeting its advantages over MP3.

Like I said, ScummVM already support Vorbis internally. If many people will play Scumm?-based games, they will get more and more exposed of Vorbis.
Nobody is Perfect.
I am Nobody.

http://pandu.poluan.info

Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #103
Ogg Vorbis... for about 3 years now... ever since I first encoded a song with q0 lowpass 20khz with headac3he.. searched for a couple weeks for how to change the lowpass with oggenc.. found it  and will never go back to anything else

I have recently been applying vorbisgain as well as re-ripping CDs (a lot of my music used to be transcoded from mp3  )

all encoded with -q 0 --advanced-encode-option lowpass_frequency=999
older tracks with oggenc 1.0.1.. newer ones with lancer aotuv b4.51
(both via dBpowerAMP... it's just easier)

When I got into video capture and encoding, I wanted to save as much space on my music as possible (only have a 40gb hdd)... ~70kbps each song... sufficient for my listening needs

for the ocasional mp3, lame 3.93.1
Vorbis-q0-lowpass99
lame3.93.1-q5-V9-k-nspsytune

  • razer
  • [*][*]
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #104
Like someone has already said, it is sad that we let the market control our choice of codec. There are probably  no real reasons NOT to use MP3 at this point, but I just don't WANT to. I want to discourage monopolies (which I hope is the right word), not support them. The companies that make DAPs and sell us digital music shouldn't tell us what formats we can use, we should tell THEM.

I voted Musepack. I just can't seem to let go of it. If I did indeed change formats at this point, it would probably be to Vorbis, for lossy encodings that is. For lossless I use WavPack.

  • Leo 69
  • [*][*][*]
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #105
After I heard obvious artifacts with MP3 @ 320 kbps I'll never dare to use it for home stereo. I stick to Vorbis @ 192.

P.S. For those, who stick to TOS#8, please read this thread:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=42844
  • Last Edit: 06 April, 2006, 08:42:12 PM by Leo 69

Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #106
most of my files are in vorbis, but i am really considering switching back to mp3 once i finally get a portable player.

  • rhammill
  • [*]
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #107
The short answer is WMA.

The long answer is:
I've done a lot of research on this recently. I started with AAC, since I thought I was going to get an iPod, but the external hard drive I had used for music died before I could back it up (it was only 3 months old).

Anyway, since I had to start again, and had a new laptop as well I did a little more research. I have a lot of files in flac format and found I could get a plug-in to play that in WMP directly. Then I found I could get an audio player that alos supported it (looking at the Cowon U3). So I entered all of the data into Media Player, then moved the files to a network share where I'd be storing the files, and all of the data (song titles, etc.) disappeared. Since flac doesn't save that data in the file itself, it is only in the WMP database, it makes it more difficult to manage the music.

On Extremetech, they have a comparison and found that they liked WMA the best, with AAC a close second for a lossy format. Since there is a lossless version of WMA, and as far as I can tell, any player that playes WMA can play the lossless version, I have re-encoded everything in WMA 128kb for use on my laptop (and future audio player) to save space, and the remaining is still in flac on the server side. I'm hoping WMA11 is capable of compressing on the fly when loading an audio player, and that I can also set up the laptop as an 'audio player' so I can sync with the lossless files on my network. If that's the case then I may convert those to WMA lossless.

Randy

  • rjamorim
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #108
Hmm... interesting comment.  Which bitrates would those be, exactly?


Above 128kbps.

Quote
I'm presuming that you're generalizing HA users as all being audiophiles that want complete transparency... but I think that there would be a few (well, at least myself) who don't need complete transparency for all applications.


I don't want complete transparency. But I don't want wish-washy underwater sound effects on my encodes either, so I think 128 - 160 is plenty (for me).

Quote
I'd love to see MP3 die... but... it's a relic kinda like the floppy drive.  It's taking its bloody time to go away for good.


I really don't see the point in your comparison. For starters, MP3 is very, very good for the vast majority of people. Just look at this poll: if even the educated geeks at HA love MP3, what to think about the uneducated masses that never heard of Vorbis and AAC?

Also, MP3 just gets the job done, and very well. It might not have the elegance or efficiency of AAC and Vorbis, but it's never what sold it anyway. It simply won't die any time sooner than AAC or Vorbis die, because it has all the inertia in the world backing it up, and it just doesn't seem to be slowing down.
Get up-to-date binaries of Lame, AAC, Vorbis and much more at RareWares:
http://www.rarewares.org

  • Garf
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer (Donating)
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #109
On Extremetech, they have a comparison and found that they liked WMA the best,


Was it a properly conducted, blind test? Which version of WMA? Pro or Standard have very different performance.Take a look at how the listening tests here are conducted and you will understand the scepticism.

Quote
Since there is a lossless version of WMA, and as far as I can tell, any player that playes WMA can play the lossless version,


As far as I know that's completely wrong.
  • Last Edit: 07 April, 2006, 05:53:01 AM by Garf

  • naylor83
  • [*][*][*]
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #110
naylor83, so you think my mpc's are a bad thing or what? iam deeply hurt... 


No, my post was directed at those who advocate MP3 for its compatibility.
davidnaylor.org

  • Anacondo
  • [*][*][*]
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #111
For me 2005 has been the year to re-discover MP3. Decisive factors: the almost non-existant MPC development and, mostly, the adquisition of an MP3 DAP.

Right now, I only use WavPack lossy 320 w/ embedded cuesheet for archiving and LAME V2 for my portable.

  • vinnie97
  • [*][*][*][*]
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #112

On Extremetech, they have a comparison and found that they liked WMA the best,


Was it a properly conducted, blind test? Which version of WMA? Pro or Standard have very different performance.Take a look at how the listening tests here are conducted and you will understand the scepticism.


The test is 2 years old...I would recommend that Rhammil check out the public listening test completed here @ Hydrogenaudio earlier this year as well.  I looked up that Extremetech test and found http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1560786,00.asp

The methodology utilized was single-ABX....the reference file wasn't given to the listeners, just WMA lossless and 4 lossily encoded copies of the same tune burnt to disk (none identified).  I'd say the results are dubious at best, outdated at worst.
  • Last Edit: 07 April, 2006, 07:49:03 AM by vinnie97

  • bubba
  • [*]
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #113
I'm Vorbis fan since first public betas. Hardware compatibility is not a big deal to me, I'm just waiting for a cheap portable player with Vorbis support, and I can wait for a while. MP3 is a past to me, I don't use it until I have to.

  • Borisz
  • [*][*][*][*]
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #114
I used Musepack before but I'm leaning back to mp3 these days. LAME became much better then I ever expected and Musepack developement is at a halt.

  • kwanbis
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer (Donating)
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #115
On Extremetech, they have a comparison and found that they liked WMA the best, with AAC a close second for a lossy format. Since there is a lossless version of WMA, and as far as I can tell, any player that playes WMA can play the lossless version

If WMA is transparent to you fine.

But, WMA Standard is not as good as LAME/VORBIS/AAC. (You can check various BLIND listening test produced here (or this very uggly "brief"))

WMA Pro is very good, but unsupported by most of the players.
  • Last Edit: 07 April, 2006, 11:51:42 AM by kwanbis

  • BradPDX
  • [*][*][*]
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #116
AAC via iTunes/Quicktime. I use LAME MP3 as well, but prefer the sound of AAC by a substantial margin, even at higher bitrates.

I use iPods, so no Ogg for me. I am sure it works just fine.

I own most of my music on CDs, so I don't bother to use up drive space on uncompressed versions (it would add up to a bit more than 1TB). I use 128kbps AAC (VBR) for use with my iPods as it sounds very good for the size, much less fatiguing than LAME -V 5 for me. When I want more, I go to my original source CDs.

I wonder what my kids will be using in High School. I'll find out in a few years and report it here.

  • AtaqueEG
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Members (Donating)
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #117
I'm Vorbis fan since first public betas. Hardware compatibility is not a big deal to me, I'm just waiting for a cheap portable player with Vorbis support, and I can wait for a while. MP3 is a past to me, I don't use it until I have to.


What about the iPod Nano? It is reasonable (heck, even the iPod video is!)

I think Rockbox support is as close as Vorbis is going to get to current DAPs.
I'm the one in the picture, sitting on a giant cabbage in Mexico, circa 1978.
Reseñas de Rock en Español: www.estadogeneral.com

  • vinnie97
  • [*][*][*][*]
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #118
Quote
I use iPods, so no Ogg for me.

No longer the case if you can rid yourself of Apple's firmware.

Quote
I think Rockbox support is as close as Vorbis is going to get to current DAPs.

Also not the case if this is anything to go by:  http://wiki.xiph.org/index.php/PortablePlayers
With Iriver, Samsung and Iaudio supporting it out of the box, I'd say that's pretty substantial.

  • rhammill
  • [*]
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #119
In response to the few responses to my post above about WMA...

I just did a quick search around various sites to compare what others thought about the quality. My decision to use WMA right now isn't because I think it's the absolute best lossy format out there. I don't think there can be a 'best' format because it's lossy. Everybody will hear things differently. My friends still encode with mp3 to 64-96kb. I'm sure I have much better quality than they do, although I would if I used mp3 at 128kb as well. I'm happy enough with the quality, but then again I'm listening to it through the speakers in my laptop. When I get around to getting an audio player with decent headphones I may feel differently.

I didn't do my own comparisons because it wasn't that important to me. I wanted to save a little space on my laptop, sure, but more importantly I wanted to only have to enter in all of the data only one more time for now. I got tired of re-entering the information again and again. I also like the compatibility factor of wma with a large number of players. While I love the iPod Nano, and it's still one of the options high on my list, I also like some of the other features coming out on other players. I also highly doubt that iTunes/iPod will ever support flac. At this point I may wait until WMP11 comes out before making a final choice on players.

So I'm sure there are studies that will show that WMA is not as good a format as whatever. But there are other studies that say otherwise. I'm certainly not trying to convince everybody that my choice is the one everybody else should make, this was just a poll as to what format each of us is using.

Also, since my CD collection has never become as large as my LP collection was, and probably never will be, I'm also looking into one of the various subscription options which I can't do via iTunes. There's tons of music I'd like to hear every once and a while again, but not enough that I'll go buy it, and not enough that I care if it's a lossless format or not. If anybody has any suggestions of which of the mainstream subscription services is good, I'd love to hear...but that's another thread.

Randy

  • AtaqueEG
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Members (Donating)
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #120
Quote
I use iPods, so no Ogg for me.

No longer the case if you can rid yourself of Apple's firmware.

Quote
I think Rockbox support is as close as Vorbis is going to get to current DAPs.

Also not the case if this is anything to go by:  http://wiki.xiph.org/index.php/PortablePlayers
With Iriver, Samsung and Iaudio supporting it out of the box, I'd say that's pretty substantial.


iRiver, iAudio and Samsung are small players in the DAP world. They are being overwhelmed by Apple. My guess-- but I am no fortune-teller-- is that they will continue to be, just as long as Apple keeps offering the easiest-to-use interface and as long as it enjoys its "fashionable" status. I am not sure I like that myself. Heck, my first DAP was a Rio Karma, for chrissakes! But Rio never quite got their act together. Now I have gone with Apple, because, sincerely I like to keep things simple. So I chose to use the main codec and the main DAP. And I have been around here for more than four years! Do you really think things are/could be different in the outside world?

I like Vorbis, I do. But I think that it will continue to be a niche codec.
I'm the one in the picture, sitting on a giant cabbage in Mexico, circa 1978.
Reseñas de Rock en Español: www.estadogeneral.com

  • rhammill
  • [*]
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #121
Hmm... The studies do look interesting, especially how AAC comes out ahead of WMA right now. I'll also have to find out more about the WMA Pro thing. More food for thought, although now that I'm well on my way to WMA-land it may be a while before I re-encode again...

Randy

  • vinnie97
  • [*][*][*][*]
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #122
[iRiver, iAudio and Samsung are small players in the DAP world. They are being overwhelmed by Apple. My guess-- but I am no fortune-teller-- is that they will continue to be, just as long as Apple keeps offering the easiest-to-use interface and as long as it enjoys its "fashionable" status. I am not sure I like that myself. Heck, my first DAP was a Rio Karma, for chrissakes! But Rio never quite got their act together. Now I have gone with Apple, because, sincerely I like to keep things simple. So I chose to use the main codec and the main DAP. And I have been around here for more than four years! Do you really think things are/could be different in the outside world?

I like Vorbis, I do. But I think that it will continue to be a niche codec.

I generally agree with you...with Apple's stranglehold, AAC is the only format poised to succeed on a wider scale in the long-term.  That said, I won't let that stop me from evangelizing about the pros of going Vorbis.

Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #123
Vorbis is great, AoTuV rulez, Lancer rockz !

  Indeed! TRUE! I always use vorbis ... go 4 AoTuV encoder & Lancer OPTIMIZED!

Ogg Vorbis... for about 3 years now... ever since I first encoded a song with q0 lowpass 20khz with headac3he.. searched for a couple weeks for how to change the lowpass with oggenc.. found it  and will never go back to anything else

I have recently been applying vorbisgain as well as re-ripping CDs (a lot of my music used to be transcoded from mp3  )

all encoded with -q 0 --advanced-encode-option lowpass_frequency=999
older tracks with oggenc 1.0.1.. newer ones with lancer aotuv b4.51
(both via dBpowerAMP... it's just easier)

When I got into video capture and encoding, I wanted to save as much space on my music as possible (only have a 40gb hdd)... ~70kbps each song... sufficient for my listening needs


I do the same thing...! When I heard vorbis after encoding for the first time.. I was like WOW! Never ever gonna go for any other lossy codec

After I heard obvious artifacts with MP3 @ 320 kbps I'll never dare to use it for home stereo. I stick to Vorbis @ 192.

P.S. For those, who stick to TOS#8, please read this thread:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=42844


Yes stick to q6 better than mp3 @ high rates

I'm Vorbis fan since first public betas. Hardware compatibility is not a big deal to me, I'm just waiting for a cheap portable player with Vorbis support, and I can wait for a while. MP3 is a past to me, I don't use it until I have to.


I never use mp3 ... infact i convert the mp3 files i have to vorbis... Its the best!

I dont give a damn about hardware compatibility!

When u see that Vorbis is better! Than go for it. No looking back
  • Last Edit: 08 April, 2006, 07:14:56 AM by NeDtHeOnE
The virtue of love isnt finding the perfect person, but by loving the imperfect person perfectly.

  • krmathis
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #124
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.

But I'm mostly using Apple Lossless though!