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 141284 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • broski
  • [*]
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #75
Mp3...only because I find it's less resource hungry on my PDA.

  • grommet
  • [*][*][*][*]
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #76
If you are in Russia, AllOFMP3 is mostly legal.  Beyond that.... it's somewhat up to your country.   

They basically survive on a technicality in their laws.  Their law doesn't consider them selling/transmitting digitized files to you as copying.  So, since it's not copying... there is no crime.      Russian copyright allows music to be "performed" without the authorization of the owner for broadcasting or cable transmission.  It just needs to pay "fees" to ROMS (Russian Organization for Multimedia & Digital Systems), which is somewhat like the fees US radio stations pay to music publishers (composers).  In other words, not much.

Anyway, use search... I'm sure it's been covered in numerous places.
  • Last Edit: 04 April, 2006, 09:40:26 PM by grommet

  • boombaard
  • [*][*][*][*]
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #77
Quote
If you are in Russia, AllOFMP3 is mostly legal.   Beyond that.... it's somewhat up to your country.  

They basically survive on a technicality in their laws.   Their law doesn't consider them selling/transmitting digitized files to you as copying.  So, since it's not copying... there is no crime.      Russian copyright allows music to be "performed" without the authorization of the owner for broadcasting or cable transmission.  It just needs to pay "fees" to ROMS (Russian Organization for Multimedia & Digital Systems), which is somewhat like the fees US radio stations pay to music publishers (composers).  In other words, not much.

Anyway, use search... I'm sure it's been covered in numerous places.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=379318"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


yes.. biggest problem with AoMP3 is that they allow users to rip/upload their own music in exchange for 'credit' or something.. so you don't really know what quality rip it is until you've bought/downloaded something afaik

  • vinnie97
  • [*][*][*][*]
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #78
Quote
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 don't doubt there are people who do this.  I do think they're a small percentage of vorbis uses.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=379316"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

lol, and you've found one of them, me.  Since I've backed up my sources to FLAC, there's really no great concern with encoding them over night to my codec of choice.  If it means I can fit in X more albums, it's a sacrifice I'm willing to take...but you are probably right in assuming that's the minority.

  • pepoluan
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #79
If space is an issue, chopping 20% off the bitrate (random number I made up) isn't going to make a huge difference.
That's where you're wrong my friend

I travel by public transports most of the time. Rarely are they sound-insulated, which means that I am fooling myself if I use too high a setting (e.g. Vorbis -q4) In fact, for my personal experience, I can safely use (don't scream now...) Vorbis -q1 and I can't tell the difference with Vorbis -q4... on the bus that is

So the saving is greater than 20%.

Now let's see... currently I have nearly 200 songs on my 256 MB CF. If the saving is only 20% then that already means I have additional of around 40 songs. 2 albums worth of songs.

I'd go all the way down to -q0 if possible... unfortunately at that level the diesel engine's hum is not masking enough...
Nobody is Perfect.
I am Nobody.

http://pandu.poluan.info

  • Supacon
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Members (Donating)
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #80
Ogg q1 sounds fine to me, as a bare minimum bitrate, but I'm sure I could abx between it and the source easily.  Nothing stands out as being too terrible though.

I use ogg q0 for things that must be small... it's tolerable, but I can certainly hear artefacts on some songs.

  • Firon
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #81
I use MP3 (-V2/0 --vbr-new) for compatibility reasons. Sometimes, I use vorbis (especially when streaming).
  • Last Edit: 05 April, 2006, 05:30:54 PM by Firon

  • smok3
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Moderator
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #82
(everytime i read the title it reads: 'your lousy codec of choice' for some reason... )
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 #83
out of that list, i use MP3s for my ipod. on my computer i use wavpack, although i have a couple albums in different codecs like musepack and ogg.

  • Supacon
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Members (Donating)
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #84
(everytime i read the title it reads: 'your lousy codec of choice' for some reason... )


My lousy codec of choice would have to be ATRAC3 

  • Teqnilogik
  • [*][*][*][*]
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #85
AAC for me.  I love its integration into iTunes and it works great on my iPod (obviously).  Plus (to my ears) I get the same quality at 128 kbps as I would with MP3 at higher bit rates so it works like a charm for me.

  • optimuz
  • [*][*]
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #86
MP3, because it's widely supported and "all" releases come in mp3
And it sounds good enough for me, becuase I don't have any overkill stereo/speakers

  • vinnie97
  • [*][*][*][*]
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #87
(everytime i read the title it reads: 'your lousy codec of choice' for some reason... )

Thanks to the power of suggestion, I'm now seeing that, too.

  • sven_Bent
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #88
MP4-AAC
Sven Bent - Denmark

  • Shade[ST]
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #89
I voted mp3, because the name "Lame" sounds perceptually better to me
(It's my main criteria for choosing software -- notice how "Photoshop" sounds more 1337 than "Paint Shop Pro"?  They have Pr0 nam3rz working for them, at Adobe)

  • vinnie97
  • [*][*][*][*]
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #90


Uh oh, MPC about to drop into fourth...who woulda' thunk it just 2 years ago.

  • PatchWorKs
  • [*][*][*][*]
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #91
Vorbis is great, AoTuV rulez, Lancer rockz !
  • Last Edit: 06 April, 2006, 07:15:26 AM by PatchWorKs

  • Busemann
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #92
I use both AAC & LAME for my personal stuff. I prefer AAC since it's easier and faster to encode, and of course uses less power to decode. The quality is transparent for both formats ime.

  • Olive
  • [*][*][*][*]
  • Members (Donating)
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #93
Ogg Vorbis. Lancer is shockingly fast and I couldn't ABX it aginst the classic encoder. I wish it had more hardware and software support though.

  • halb27
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #94
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.

Just for an answer - don't want to go off-topic:
I did extensive tests on my iRiver H140 before really using it. Difference in battery life was something like 2h when switching from mp3 cbr256 to vorbis (I guess it was q6 or q7 - bitrate was definitely inferior to mp3's) or to wavPack lossy 384kbps (my prefered format then).

But I forgot to mention another nice feature of mp3 which I really appreciate: changing the volume losslessly after encoding using mp3gain.
lame3995n -Q0.5

  • naylor83
  • [*][*][*]
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #95
To those who think Ogg Vorbis is an unnecessary complication:

Why not use the best audio compression available? Your friends can readjust. Someone has to make the first move. Being a technocrat, I'm more than happy to do so myself.
davidnaylor.org

  • smok3
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Moderator
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #96
naylor83, so you think my mpc's are a bad thing or what? iam deeply hurt... 
PANIC: CPU 1: Cache Error (unrecoverable - dcache data) Eframe = 0x90000000208cf3b8
NOTICE - cpu 0 didn't dump TLB, may be hung

  • Supacon
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Members (Donating)
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #97
But I forgot to mention another nice feature of mp3 which I really appreciate: changing the volume losslessly after encoding using mp3gain.


Is there not a Vorbisgain tool for your oggs?

  • pepoluan
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #98
Whoa... the VorbisFans are on the move
Nobody is Perfect.
I am Nobody.

http://pandu.poluan.info

  • vinnie97
  • [*][*][*][*]
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #99
losing more ground to mp3, actually.  MP3 = a titan you can't easily bring down.