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 141328 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • pepoluan
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #175
Whoopsie. My bad. The built-in input plugin for MP3 does not support RG. You must use Shibatch's in_mpg123.dll (which I use now)

But Winamp's built-in input plugin for Vorbis does support RG! Go Vorbis! Heh heh heh 
Nobody is Perfect.
I am Nobody.

http://pandu.poluan.info

  • VEG
  • [*][*]
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #176
Ogg Vorbis! Best choice.
Sorry for my English.
http://vorbis.org.ru/

  • pepoluan
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #177
Whoopsie. My bad. The built-in input plugin for MP3 does not support RG. You must use Shibatch's in_mpg123.dll (which I use now)

But Winamp's built-in input plugin for Vorbis does support RG! Go Vorbis! Heh heh heh 
Just FYI, MediaMonkey's built-in input plugins uses in_mpg123.dll, and so it supports RG for all formats it can play. (Sadly, only track-mode RG).
Nobody is Perfect.
I am Nobody.

http://pandu.poluan.info

  • iwod
  • [*][*][*]
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #178
I use either Mp3 or AAC because of their Hardware Support.

  • Mirage2k
  • [*][*]
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #179
I switched from AAC back to MP3 at the end of 2005 and haven't looked back.

  • Mgz
  • [*][*][*]
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #180
MP3 since it is so easy to encode... lastest lame MP3 and alt-preset extreme

with AAC, I like AAC but, hmmm , so hard to choose... Nero or Apple, and I hate iTunes T_T
still LAME 3.96.1 --preset extreme -q 0 -V 0 -m s at least until 2005.

  • k.eight.a
  • [*][*][*][*]
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #181
For me Lame MP3 (-V 2 --vbr-new -Y) exclusively

Below mentioned points clearly covers my thoughts on this topic...
mp3 (Lame): very good quality, low battery drain on mobile DAPs, universal usage.
MP3 for the obvious reason it's supported practically everywhere. It's too bad open-source formats don't have as much support.
As much as I like Ogg, MP3 has amazing compatability.
Oh, and I use MP3. All day, every day. ReplayGain, gapless, tagging, excellent quality at low bitrates, universal compatability, what is not to like?
WavPack (-m -h) for lossless
Sorry for my poor English, I'm trying to get better... ;)
"The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled, was convincing the world he didn't exist."

  • Klyith
  • [*][*][*][*]
  • Members (Donating)
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #182
Ogg Vorbis and FLAC for me.

I switched to Ogg from musepack at the beginning of this year. Even before that I was ripping classical stuff in ogg because the long tracks made the seek situation with MPC intolerable. Then at Christmas time I was ripping music from some people and thought, "Why am I still using a near-dead format?" I don't have the ears to appreciate it. So the switch to ogg was made.

I have a MP3 only portable, but I don't find that maintaining a seperate collection is that big a problem. Mostly because I don't change the music on it all that frequently...

  • AtaqueEG
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Members (Donating)
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #183
With software like MAREO around, your choice of codecs easy to achieve, but I wonder, is there really a point in having the same tracks on lossy twice? Is there a resaon I don't see?
I'm the one in the picture, sitting on a giant cabbage in Mexico, circa 1978.
Reseñas de Rock en Español: www.estadogeneral.com

  • Firon
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #184
One for use on the PC, the other for the portable, and the FLAC relegated to backup on DVDs or something?

  • Klyith
  • [*][*][*][*]
  • Members (Donating)
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #185
With software like MAREO around, your choice of codecs easy to achieve, but I wonder, is there really a point in having the same tracks on lossy twice? Is there a resaon I don't see?
One for use on the PC, the other for the portable, and the FLAC relegated to backup on DVDs or something?

If you were asking about why I said Ogg and FLAC, it should have been Ogg or FLAC. Lossless gets used for any cds that are scratched bad enough that ripping them in EAC is slow and painful. Also sometimes when I borrow a cd from a friend. I don't bother making backups of all my cds, I figure anything that would distroy my cd collection would get the backups too.

But yeah, I keep duplicate mp3s for my Rio of most stuff I rip to Ogg on a 60gb usb drive. It's a much smaller job since I never load classical (and hardly ever jazz) to the portable.

  • pika2000
  • [*][*][*]
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #186
Lame MP3 to be specific. Main reason is compatibility and hardware/software support. I mean, even Sony HiMDs can play MP3s now. Also, Lame is well developed and tested, and provide excellent quality.

Atrac: Mainly for gapless. Untill manufactures get their acts together to support gapless (OGG support but no gapless?) or Rockbox takes over all DAPs firmwares, I'll stick with Atrac.
twitter.com/pika2000

  • Maglor
  • [*]
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #187
[quote name='de Mon' date='Apr 9 2006, 07:36 PM' post='380604']
[quote name='Maglor' post='380499' date='Apr 9 2006, 03:56 AM']
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.
[/quote]

 
I would like to see these tests. 
[  /quote]

I've tested with these hears of mine... it's much easier. Try ripping it at the same bitrate and then compare.

  • de Mon
  • [*][*][*][*]
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #188
I've tested with these hears of mine... it's much easier. Try ripping it at the same bitrate and then compare.


WMA better than others? I have a suspicion you have never heard of ABX tests. Am I right?
Ogg Vorbis for music and speech [q-2.0 - q6.0]
FLAC for recordings to be edited
Speex for speech

  • k.eight.a
  • [*][*][*][*]
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #189
@ Maglor: Have you ever heard of HydrogenAudio Terms of Service?

TOS #8: 
All members that put forth a statement concerning subjective sound quality, must -- to the best of their ability -- provide objective support for their claims. Acceptable means of support are double blind listening tests (ABX or ABC/HR) demonstrating that the member can discern a difference perceptually, together with a test sample to allow others to reproduce their findings. Graphs, non-blind listening tests, waveform difference comparisons, and so on, are not acceptable means of providing support. 
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. 
 
I've tested with these hears of mine... it's much easier. Try ripping it at the same bitrate and then compare.
Sorry for my poor English, I'm trying to get better... ;)
"The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled, was convincing the world he didn't exist."

  • lolent
  • [*]
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #190
The Musepack codec has my preference to backup my CDs in a lossy format

  • Diow
  • [*][*]
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #191
I still in mp3 'cause your quality and great compatibity with a great number of devices.
But in the nexts years i think in replace mp3 for ogg,aac or mpc  they starting to offering great quality and when the implementations of these formats are in the begining,except in mpc,  of the mp3 are so close of the end.
Sorry for my bad english.

  • xequence
  • [*][*][*]
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #192
Quote
But all I know is that not even with Lame can MP3 at the same Bitrate be better than WMA... tested.


Accually, I heard that WMA is highly optimized for low bitrates (64Kbps), so they can do the marketing stuff (You know... "We beat MP3 at 128, with our 64!" stuff), but it fails considerably at higher bitrates. I dont know where I heard this, I havnt done tests, so dont warn me or anything. It could very well be wrong, but it does sound like something microsoft would do.
And if you believe theres not a chance to die...

  • seanyseansean
  • [*][*][*][*]
  • Members (Donating)
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #193
mpc (Musepack) for home collection (-q 5)


Same here. I've taken to backing up my CDs to flac with embedded cue sheets (can I put the album art in there too?), and as of now have 80gb of new CDs that I need to back up. I was going to use the opportunity to change to a more supported codec than musepack but as far as I can see it:

1. I don't understand all the aac variations/encoders, and which is the 'best'. I tried aac on my smartphone and ipod/rockbox and they both sucked power and jumped about, whereas the musepack files playback fine whilst using minimal cpu.

2. I need to transcode to mp3 for my girlfriends player occasionally and i've never had a problem (i.e. an obvious artifact) transcoding from musepack.

3. Ogg again is too slow on smartphone and rockbox, especially compared with mpc.

I'd love to change but where is the obvious replacement? mp3 would be fine but even cloth eared me has ABXd artifacts fairly easily, though admittedly that isn't with the latest lame encoder. I need something thats efficient, easy to encode/decode, supported on smartphone (tcpmp) and rockbox(ipod) that doesn't transcode too badly to mp3.

  • Gow
  • [*][*][*]
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #194
For lossy in my music folder, Nero AAC 1.0.0.2 (26 May 2006) -q 0.55
Due to it being true VBR AAC. 

OR, Ogg aoTuV -q 6.0 ...can't decide on which to go with as Rockbox or native support is keeping me up in the air.

All CDs are ripped to a single wavpack file with cue sheet and eac log, than burnt to DVDs for backup of my audio collection.  Than later I can take the archive, pop it in foobar200 and convert to whatever lossy format catches my listening fancy.  With the lossless backup I am not stuck or feel confined to a single format. 

Just using Nero AAC at the moment due to its VBR and my possible DAP will be an iPod...though the Cowon iAudio X5L is nice too.  Pretty much the reason I have been making a lossless audio archive my music collection to save me the hassle of being stuck.

- Gow

Edit: Added in my ogg support
  • Last Edit: 27 June, 2006, 01:18:41 PM by Gow
Zune 80, Tak -p4 audio library, Lossless=Choice

  • Lashiec
  • [*][*]
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #195
Vorbis here! I've been using the format since 2002, and I won't stop using it, unless there's a major catastrophe leaving AAC as the only survivor. In that case, I have FLAC copies of the files

  • kotekzot
  • [*]
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #196
lame 3.97 apx. excellent compatibility and quality.

  • rlbest
  • [*]
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #197
I encode my vast collection of harpsichord music at 5kbps Blade MP3 and it sounds AWESOME!
I think something went wrong and now I own a blind camel.

  • Firon
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #198
You should at least pick a real bitrate, the lowest MP3 can go is 8.
  • Last Edit: 28 June, 2006, 12:59:30 AM by Firon

  • rlbest
  • [*]
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #199
You should at least pick a real bitrate, the lowest it can go is 8.


Not MY version of the Blade encoder. It can go as low as -20. Of course, you can't hear anything and the tracks start sucking bits out of other songs. And then the universe implodes. So it's best to go with a positive number.
  • Last Edit: 28 June, 2006, 12:27:13 AM by rlbest
I think something went wrong and now I own a blind camel.