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 141712 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • damaki
  • [*][*][*]
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #125
No change for me so far : wavpack lossy for regular use and mp3 for my ipod.
Stupidity is root of all evil.

Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #126
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.

  • krmathis
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #127
NeDtHeOnE. Are you serious? 
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.

Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #128
NeDtHeOnE. Are you serious? 
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.

  • senab
  • [*][*][*]
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #129
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 

  • krmathis
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #130
NeDtHeOnE. You missed the most important part of my original post!
"The few times I encode to a lossy format I use AAC."

  • shadowking
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #131

NeDtHeOnE. Are you serious? 
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 -b4hhj0s0.7cc

Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #132


NeDtHeOnE. Are you serious? 
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.


 

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.

  • johnsonlam
  • [*][*][*]
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #133
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.
  • Last Edit: 08 April, 2006, 02:53:53 PM by johnsonlam
Hong Kong - International Joke Center (after 1997-06-30)

  • Triza
  • [*][*][*][*]
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #134
iAudio has plenty flash-based player that might suit you. Few of them has Vorbis support.

Triza

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.

  • smok3
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Moderator
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #135
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

  • vinnie97
  • [*][*][*][*]
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #136
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....

  • naylor83
  • [*][*][*]
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #137
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

  • vinnie97
  • [*][*][*][*]
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #138
good points!

  • stephanV
  • [*][*][*][*]
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #139
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.
  • Last Edit: 09 April, 2006, 07:07:16 AM by stephanV
"We cannot win against obsession. They care, we don't. They win."

  • Maglor
  • [*]
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #140
 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!

  • windmiller
  • [*][*][*]
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #141
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.
  • Last Edit: 09 April, 2006, 08:46:11 AM by windmiller

  • sony666
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #142
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

  • jmartis
  • [*][*][*][*]
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #143
wavpack lossy @350kbps for archiving purposes; mp3@Lame(preset standard) for my portable player

  • de Mon
  • [*][*][*][*]
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #144
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.


 
I would like to see these tests. 
Ogg Vorbis for music and speech [q-2.0 - q6.0]
FLAC for recordings to be edited
Speex for speech

  • Supacon
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Members (Donating)
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #145
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.

  • skelly831
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Members (Donating)
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #146
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

  • AtaqueEG
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Members (Donating)
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #147
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... 
I'm the one in the picture, sitting on a giant cabbage in Mexico, circa 1978.
Reseñas de Rock en Español: www.estadogeneral.com

  • shadowking
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #148

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 -b4hhj0s0.7cc

Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #149
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