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 141372 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • psycho
  • [*][*][*]
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #50
MP3

Because of hardware support... like many have already said before. My car player supports only mp3 and wma, the same goes for my portable CD player... So, I can choose between mp3 and wma... Offcourse I choose mp3! 

If all my devices would support mpc, I would use it for sure, it's the best lossy codec for my ears!
lame -V 0

  • calx
  • [*][*][*]
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #51
MP3 -V 2 --vbr-new.
  • Last Edit: 08 October, 2006, 10:43:05 AM by calx

  • rjamorim
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #52
Quote
I suppose I eggagerated a bit, but the best encoder appears to be Nero.


Only on low bitrates. It got disqualified at the 128kbps test, and even if it didn't, it would have been prtty much tied to iTunes.

Quote
As for the free decoders, yes, Winamp & Foobar have free aac decoders.  Most other software out there requires extra payment though... like players for your palm pilot or PocketPC and such.


Just go with TCPMP!

Quote
I'm not really sure how that can be so, however... why do some companies have to pay licensing fees on AAC, and other companies can freely distribute software with support for the codec without paying?


Black magick.

Quote
But in any case, this must be one factor that helps to discourage its adoption, especially amongst HA users.[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=378656"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I think it's mostly because, on all recent listening tests, Vorbis did better than AAC at the bitrates HA users care about. Couple that with the fact that if you disregard the iPod, Vorbis has much better hardware support, and Vorbis becomes a much more interesting choice to the geeks here.
Get up-to-date binaries of Lame, AAC, Vorbis and much more at RareWares:
http://www.rarewares.org

  • jorsol
  • [*][*]
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #53
Vorbis since 2002 (v1.0).
JorSol
aoTuVb5 -q4

  • saratoga
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #54
As much as I like Ogg, MP3 has amazing compatability.

The lower bitrates where it doesn't work so well just don't seem very relevent these days when you've got 300GB hard disks and 30GB portable players.

  • samesong
  • [*]
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #55
iTunes AAC as of this week, after using Vorbis for over three years 

Why? Two major reasons. One, whenever I wanted to share a song with a friend, the great majority of the time they didn't have the software to play it. Windows Media Player and iTunes have no native support for ogg.

Two: Have you ever played with an iPod before? I somehow avoided using one until a couple weeks ago.. they're nice. The interface is clean, the scroll wheel is amazing, and best of all, they fully support AAC.

I'm just beginning to re-rip all my music in FLAC in case ogg gains some monumentous support in the future, that way I can easily transcode.

  • vinnie97
  • [*][*][*][*]
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #56
Quote
As much as I like Ogg, MP3 has amazing compatability.

The lower bitrates where it doesn't work so well just don't seem very relevent these days when you've got 300GB hard disks and 30GB portable players.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=378817"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Two words, flash players.

Quote
and Vorbis becomes a much more interesting choice to the geeks here.

Perhaps, but for services like www.mixdepot.net where space means everything, the more you can get out of the bits, the better.

  • skelly831
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Members (Donating)
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #57
My crystal ball says we'll see a huge uprise in MusePack activity in 2006...

But if nothing happens, don't blame me!

Mwahahaha!!!

EDIT: I'm using mp3 in the meantime.
  • Last Edit: 03 April, 2006, 11:03:22 PM by skelly831
we was young an' full of beans

  • toomuch
  • [*]
  • Members (Donating)
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #58
LAME mp3 for me

Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #59
Vorbis, for archiving music I made (-q 6-7).
But for releasing I'm using MP3 (Lame VBR -V 2).
Non-profit Netlabel : Bump Foot
http://www.bumpfoot.net/

  • Supacon
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Members (Donating)
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #60
*Duplicate post*
Please delete
  • Last Edit: 04 April, 2006, 02:30:15 AM by Supacon

  • Supacon
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Members (Donating)
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #61
Quote
Quote
...the best encoder appears to be Nero.


Only on low bitrates. It got disqualified at the 128kbps test, and even if it didn't, it would have been prtty much tied to iTunes.

Quote
But in any case, this must be one factor that helps to discourage its adoption, especially amongst HA users.[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=378656"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I think it's mostly because, on all recent listening tests, Vorbis did better than AAC at the bitrates HA users care about. Couple that with the fact that if you disregard the iPod, Vorbis has much better hardware support, and Vorbis becomes a much more interesting choice to the geeks here.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=378812"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]




Hmm... interesting comment.  Which bitrates would those be, exactly?

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 think a lot of people want something perfect for some scenarios (i.e. listening at home with high grade speakers or headphones), and something very compact for others, like listening on a DAP, in Car, or the like.  In my scenario, I need something very compact to store a very large library of music in a small space (a laptop hard drive).

I find it interesting that you imply AAC is only better than ogg Vorbis at low bitrates.  I guess for me, that would decide it (in favor of AAC) because I only really consider codecs other than MP3 when I'm shooting for low bitrates anyways; if I had a large amount of space available then only two options really make sense to me:

1) Use LAME presets for great compatibility and near-transparency.
2) Go lossless and don't worry about quality.  (You can transcode later.)

I think, though, that option 1 wouldn't need to exist if there was just a wee bit more support in the industry for ogg.  Hopefully that is to come relatively soon.  I guess even if AAC outperforms ogg Vorbis at, say, 48 kb/s, it still has a lot of advantages, being free and all.  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.

  • jolo
  • [*]
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #62
This is easy.

OGG. It is royalty free, open source and is has superior sound for equivelent size than MP3 or any other form of lossy format.
Is the FBI Socialized Law Enforcement, like Healthcare

  • jolo
  • [*]
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #63
It is said that people let the marketing deparment of large oligopilies control what they use. Ugh.

The best way to fight control the total Corporate control of art, creativity, unfair copyright laws, the idiotic DRM is with your dollars.

The worse of them is Microsoft and Apple.  How consumers just accept anything they do is beyond me.

For example, there are better portable audio players, that the incredibly unflexible Ipod.
They will never, ever support any royalty free, open source product because they are about marketing and convincing you to eat their limitations and be happy. After all, it has the "accepted cool factor".

Why people who have an understanding of the industry use iTUNES is beyond me. You are stuck with the awful DRM crap.

I use AllofMP3. After I select what I want, then I choose the audio format and quality. One of the options is lossless and I have downloaded music in Monkey's Ape format, lossless.
The will encode your selections for you if you want. Does it cost more to have a lossless format, of course, but it is your choice.
NO DRM.
Youi can select OGG  and the quality desired, MP3 and the quality desired, MMC, Flac, etc, etc.

Lack of  support of open source formats and bowing down to the marketing of oligoopolies,  means, more copy protection schemes, less control of your purchased products, less creativity, less choices,  higher prices, less artists getting a chance to create their art, less revenue for artists and simplpy more Corporate control over art.

Think a little bit and just do a search before purchasing something. Reward the innovative and independent by your dollar.
Is the FBI Socialized Law Enforcement, like Healthcare

Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #64
Lossy: MP3 - Great Hardware/Software Support
Lossless: FLAC - Fast Decoding, Unix Style ;-)
.halverhahn

Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #65
MP3

  • grommet
  • [*][*][*][*]
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #66
Quote
The best way to fight control the total Corporate control of art, creativity, unfair copyright laws, the idiotic DRM is with your dollars.
{edit}

I use AllofMP3. After I select what I want, then I choose the audio format and quality. One of the options is lossless and I have downloaded music in Monkey's Ape format, lossless.
The will encode your selections for you if you want. Does it cost more to have a lossless format, of course, but it is your choice.  NO DRM.
{edit}

Think a little bit and just do a search before purchasing something. Reward the innovative and independent by your dollar.[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=378882"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Do note if you purchase anything from "AllOFMP3", you aren't rewarding anyone but some, uh, "creative" Russians.  Anyway, thanks for taking me off topic.   

  • Tiis
  • [*]
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #67
Vorbis, since it was obvious that there wouldn't be any native MPC support by hardware-players.

  • vinnie97
  • [*][*][*][*]
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #68
It's interesting to see that it's not *quite* a landslide in favor of MP3 (well, perhaps not a surprise here at HA ) and that MPC is falling so far below Vorbis (I suppose that's due to a combination of listening test results, public and personal, revealing tuning improvements, better hardware support and no seeking problems).

  • smok3
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Moderator
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #69
not so much a fan of portables so far, there is bunch of mpc-s on my hds, but nowadays i use faac or itunes, not for music but for encoding audio that will get muxed with video into mp4s.
PANIC: CPU 1: Cache Error (unrecoverable - dcache data) Eframe = 0x90000000208cf3b8
NOTICE - cpu 0 didn't dump TLB, may be hung

Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #70
It used to be Musepack for me.  But I'm tired of all it's bullshit.  Flac all the way!!!!

  • pepoluan
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #71
Why, Ogg Vorbis of course! Small and unbelievably transparent on my iPaq, playable excellently using GSPlayer (TCPMP also works, but it's too big to my liking).

Shameless plug: With the RockBox firmware, iPod-ians will now be able to play Vorbis files.

In fact I am mailing some game developers to switch over to Vorbis... trumpeting the fact of high-quality at low-bitrate, not to mention completely public-domain free codec and tools... although in case of ScummVM they already beat me to it. 
Nobody is Perfect.
I am Nobody.

http://pandu.poluan.info

  • Supacon
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Members (Donating)
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #72
Quote
Do note if you purchase anything from "AllOFMP3", you aren't rewarding anyone but some, uh, "creative" Russians.  Anyway, thanks for taking me off topic.   
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=378890"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

AllofMP3 looks like a very interesting site... is it not legal, as in they didn't pay licensing fees for the copies you get? What the heck does this mean anyways?:

Quote
Is it legal to download?

Тhe availability over the Internet of the ALLOFMP3.com materials is authorized by the license # LS-3М-05-03 of the Russian Multimedia and Internet Society (ROMS) and license # 006/3M-05 of the Rightholders Federation for Collective Copyright Management of Works Used Interactively (FAIR). In accordance to the licenses' terms MediaServices pays license fees for all materials downloaded from the site subject to the Law of the Russian Federation "On Copyright and Related Rights". All these materials are solely for personal use. Any further distribution, resale or broadcasting are prohibited.

Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #73
Quote
Quote
mp3 (Lame):
very good quality, low battery drain on mobile DAPs, universal usage.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I don't recall seeing any conclusive proof one way or the other regarding battery drain between formats. I do recall seeing something where battery drains more as bitrates increase, but not inherently due to codec format when using similar bitrates.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=378713"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

At least it's true with iRiver's products. Ogg's consumption of battery life is greater than MP3's.

[a href="http://www.misticriver.net/showthread.php?t=10242]http://www.misticriver.net/showthread.php?t=10242[/url]
http://www.misticriver.net/showpost.php?&p...96&postcount=81

  • saratoga
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #74
Quote
Quote
As much as I like Ogg, MP3 has amazing compatability.

The lower bitrates where it doesn't work so well just don't seem very relevent these days when you've got 300GB hard disks and 30GB portable players.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=378817"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Two words, flash players.



I guess.  Its hard for me to see the logic in it though.  From my view, you buy flash because its all you need.  If space is an issue, chopping 20% off the bitrate (random number I made up) isn't going to make a huge difference.  If 4GB was little enough space that you are willing to change formats, and sacrifice compatability, is being able to fit maybe the equivilent of 5GB of MP3 at equivilent quality really going to be enough?  For some maybe.  For many, buying a HD player thats marginally heavier but massively more spacious is probably what you're going to do.

I don't doubt there are people who do this.  I do think they're a small percentage of vorbis uses.