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 142082 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • krikke
  • [*]
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #225
My choice is MP3, because like many others, my DAP only plays this format 
I'm already using OGG on my mobile (64mb) and absolutely (!) love the format, so much quality at medium bitrates, can't be better.

I'm also testing the "new" aac+ format, and it's even better then ogg, so if my future DAP will support AAC+, time for mp3/ogg is over

  • Junon
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #226
I'm also testing the "new" aac+ format, and it's even better then ogg, so if my future DAP will support AAC+, time for mp3/ogg is over


Don't be too fast concerning that decision. The SBR part of AAC+ and MP3Pro is a real power eater. At least in the case of MP3Pro power consumption is 300% compared to regular MP3 decoding, which can be an extreme annoyance since it drastically lowers a portable's battery life. Too bad I haven't found any reliable sources about SBR and the processing power it needs in conjunction with AAC instead of MP3.

Edit: Please note that the source I posted is quite outdated. More current SBR decoders might be more efficient than the one mentioned by Gabriel.
  • Last Edit: 22 October, 2006, 05:26:10 PM by Junon

Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #227
MP3 (LAME 3.97 V 3)

Best compromise for bitrates (usually 150-170 for my music), encoding time, and compatibility. Sounds fantastic in my car and on my iPod nano.
iTunes 10 - Mac OS X 10.6
256kbps AAC VBR
iPhone 4 32GB

  • vinnie97
  • [*][*][*][*]
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #228
Still lovin' Vorbis here with my JVC head unit (via USB port), Ipod Nano (with Rockbox) and Iaudio5. :)

Not concerned with AAC until AAC+ becomes widely supported on DAPs of all makes and sizes.

  • profoX
  • [*]
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #229
I am proud to say that I always use ogg vorbis when I encode music from CD's on my pc.
For one, it is the only lossy format that works by default on most linux distributions,
and two, quality is just.. better
oh, and three, it's completely open source, how cool is that.. 

The reason that I don't really need MP3 is that I don't have an MP3 player anymore, and I am looking forward to buy a small media device that is able to play ogg vorbis... maybe a gp2x.. those things are pretty cool.. and not so expensive.. and they run on embedded linux  http://www.gp2x.com/

  • Piffles
  • [*]
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #230
MP3 because, when used intelligently, it does everything I need from an audio codec: good compression, decent  sound quality, normalizing possibilities and widespread support.  Why change?
Lame VBR Standard>Foobar v0.8.3>M-Audio Fast Track Pro>AKG K501

  • Firon
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #231
Don't be too fast concerning that decision. The SBR part of AAC+ and MP3Pro is a real power eater. At least in the case of MP3Pro power consumption is 300% compared to regular MP3 decoding, which can be an extreme annoyance since it drastically lowers a portable's battery life. Too bad I haven't found any reliable sources about SBR and the processing power it needs in conjunction with AAC instead of MP3.


I remember reading someone's post on HA that there was a lower complexity SBR decoder (at the cost of some "accuracy") for HE-AAC. Whether it was true or not, I don't know. Plus, optimizations can go a long way, it might not be 300% anymore for modern HE-AAC decoders.
  • Last Edit: 13 November, 2006, 05:03:42 PM by Firon

  • Robbie
  • [*]
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #232
I prefer to use FLAC, but when I use lossy I use MP3 - based entirely on compatibility rather than best sound quality or compression ratios - I know I can pretty much play mp3 files anywhere on anything.

  • HE-Dave
  • [*]
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #233
I use Nero AAC (~400 kbps) to rip my CDs (2,000+ tracks).  I used to use Vorbis, but changed my mind when I discovered that I could ABX it at 320 kbps.  The non-ripped portion of my collection (~400 tracks) is mostly Mp3 though.
CD -> EAC+LAME V4+WV hybrid 320. Remote hard backup of every CD.

  • de Mon
  • [*][*][*][*]
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #234
I use Nero AAC (~400 kbps) to rip my CDs (2,000+ tracks).  I used to use Vorbis, but changed my mind when I discovered that I could ABX it at 320 kbps.  The non-ripped portion of my collection (~400 tracks) is mostly Mp3 though.


Please provide some samples where 320 kbs (-q9) Ogg Vorbis is ABXable and other coders do well? I think it will be very interesting.
Ogg Vorbis for music and speech [q-2.0 - q6.0]
FLAC for recordings to be edited
Speex for speech

  • HE-Dave
  • [*]
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #235

I use Nero AAC (~400 kbps) to rip my CDs (2,000+ tracks).  I used to use Vorbis, but changed my mind when I discovered that I could ABX it at 320 kbps.  The non-ripped portion of my collection (~400 tracks) is mostly Mp3 though.


Please provide some samples where 320 kbs (-q9) Ogg Vorbis is ABXable and other coders do well? I think it will be very interesting.


Well, it happened on a very broad range of music, including older jazz recordings, pop, classic rock, and modern rock.  The problem I noticed was the treble boost that was apparent at lower bitrates was still slightly noticeable even at 320.  This was a couple of years ago, but about a week ago I was able to ABX (20/20) samples encoded with aoTuV beta 5.

FYI, I'm 17; I don't listen to extraordinarily loud music or anything, and have no trouble hearing >20kHz tones.  I think that's probably the reason.  If you insist, I'll provide some examples... err... whenever I get the chance. 
  • Last Edit: 15 November, 2006, 03:55:48 PM by HE-Dave
CD -> EAC+LAME V4+WV hybrid 320. Remote hard backup of every CD.

  • HE-Dave
  • [*]
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #236
EDIT: Aaaand I just realized I linked to copyrighted material with this post.  Can't have that.  It WAS a listening test... so I'll have to redo it with some royalty-free music.

Sorry, guys. 
  • Last Edit: 16 November, 2006, 07:09:46 AM by HE-Dave
CD -> EAC+LAME V4+WV hybrid 320. Remote hard backup of every CD.

  • de Mon
  • [*][*][*][*]
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #237
EDIT: Aaaand I just realized I linked to copyrighted material with this post.  Can't have that.  It WAS a listening test... so I'll have to redo it with some royalty-free music.

Sorry, guys. 


If you provide <30 sec samples there will be no crime IMHO. Anyway you state you are capable of listening >20 kHz (:-O how old are you? 1-2?) - there is no point in this statement since at -q9 Ogg Vorbis lowpass must work fine. Can you explain what kind of artifacts did you listen out? And by the way I hope you used the latest version of Ogg Vorbis (at least 'aoTuV 2') and not the 1.0 version.
And finaly - at this bitrate all the leading encoders are equaly transparent.
Ogg Vorbis for music and speech [q-2.0 - q6.0]
FLAC for recordings to be edited
Speex for speech

  • HE-Dave
  • [*]
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #238
30-second samples!  Good idea.  Stupid mistake on my part, I guess.  Sorry.

As far as the >20kHz thing, sorry if I was misleading, I didn't mean to imply that the artifacts were above 20kHz (and that for some reason Vorbis decided to stop using a lowpass.)  I was just trying to give you an idea of the quality of my hearing, which in my opinion is quite good.

For the listening test I did yesterday (the one I removed), I actually used the most recent Xiph.org codec because I was on a different computer and was too lazy to download aoTuV.  When I get the chance to redo this, I'll be sure to download it.  That test was actually at -q10 (~500 kbps) and I scored 19/20.

The 500 kbps (Xiph.org) test was MUCH harder than the 320 kbps (auTuV beta 5) test I had recently performed.  The distortion I heard was a boost of high frequencies (very early parts of hi-hat / cymbal strokes) and an Mp3-like warbling effect in those same frequencies.

Don't try to pull that all-encoders-are-transparent-above-a-certain-bitrate stuff.  Different encoders are transparent to different people at different bitrates for a variety of reasons.

I'll do another listening test for you all when I get a chance, but I'm very busy at school lately.  Until then, you kind of just have to trust that I wouldn't post a claim as big as this if it were false.  This is a community; everything posted in it should benefit the topic in some way.

-Dave
CD -> EAC+LAME V4+WV hybrid 320. Remote hard backup of every CD.

  • skelly831
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Members (Donating)
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #239
As far as the >20kHz thing, sorry if I was misleading, I didn't mean to imply that the artifacts were above 20kHz (and that for some reason Vorbis decided to stop using a lowpass.)  I was just trying to give you an idea of the quality of my hearing, which in my opinion is quite good.

For the listening test I did yesterday (the one I removed), I actually used the most recent Xiph.org codec because I was on a different computer and was too lazy to download aoTuV.  When I get the chance to redo this, I'll be sure to download it.  That test was actually at -q10 (~500 kbps) and I scored 19/20.

  Impressive.

EDIT: That claim about your hearing is also impressive.
  • Last Edit: 16 November, 2006, 10:04:54 PM by skelly831
we was young an' full of beans

  • mat128
  • [*][*][*]
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #240
Lame MP3 

My reason: its compatible with everything out there!

  • vulc44n
  • [*][*]
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #241
I transcode flac to either lame MP3 or OGG as needed.

  • HbG
  • [*][*][*][*]
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #242
I do the same.

And encoding to OGG is so much faster.
Veni Vidi Vorbis.

  • atrac
  • [*]
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #243
hi guys,

as you see I'm new to this forum.

I voted ''other''.

For my music collection I use atrac3/atrac3+.

I think it's the most underrated and surpressed format. Sony won't 'release' it and normal people, who don't use sonicstage or don't own a walkman, always understimate it.

atrac3 is just a great codec for overall audio. It has a very cmfy sound to it. I can't explain it (I know this is not convincing evidence but then I'm not trying to convince any-one ).

atrac3+ has it all: it has 320/352 Kbps bitrates and it sounds stunning, it has a normal (I call it 'medium') 160/192 Kbps bitrate wich still surprises me every time I listen to it and last but not least the trusty 64 Kbps bitrate, this makes my files approx. 2 MB in size and soundquality is very comfy. overall I think atrac sounds natural and warm, with a comfy sense of space in it. I'd mind you that I'm not an audio technicus or anything, but just an audio enthousiast

I must say, I always hated MP3 because of it's awfull sound, but since I've met LAME 3.96 I think MP3 is all-right for now. But it just doesn't sound as warm and comfy as atrac does. I even might encode my music to LAME, but its such a pain in the *** to convert them with EAC because it takes soooooo damn long. But the results EAC give are very very good, I have to say.

PS: all stated above is just my OWN (SUBJECTIVE) OPINION, based on my OWN (SUBJECTIVE) EXPERIENCES. son these ar NO facts at all!!!

greetz
  • Last Edit: 05 December, 2006, 01:42:30 PM by atrac
- emotion drives the world -

  • dutch109
  • [*][*][*]
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #244
hi guys,

as you see I'm new to this forum.

I voted ''other''.

For my music collection I use atrac3/atrac3+.

I think it's the most underrated and surpressed format. Sony won't 'release' it and normal people, who don't use sonicstage or don't own a walkman, always understimate it.

atrac3 is just a great codec for overall audio. It has a very cmfy sound to it. I can't explain it (I know this is not convincing evidence but then I'm not trying to convince any-one ).

atrac3+ has it all: it has 320/352 Kbps bitrates and it sounds stunning, it has a normal (I call it 'medium') 160/192 Kbps bitrate wich still surprises me every time I listen to it and last but not least the trusty 64 Kbps bitrate, this makes my files approx. 2 MB in size and soundquality is very comfy. overall I think atrac sounds natural and warm, with a comfy sense of space in it. I'd mind you that I'm not an audio technicus or anything, but just an audio enthousiast

I must say, I always hated MP3 because of it's awfull sound, but since I've met LAME 3.96 I think MP3 is all-right for now. But it just doesn't sound as warm and comfy as atrac does. I even might encode my music to LAME, but its such a pain in the *** to convert them with EAC because it takes soooooo damn long. But the results EAC give are very very good, I have to say.

greetz


You should read TOS #8.
  • Last Edit: 05 December, 2006, 12:59:11 PM by dutch109
Vorbis -q2/5 (Android/PC) & WavPack -hhx6m
https://playnoise.com/

  • Mercurio
  • [*][*][*]
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #245
Wellcome to Hydrogenaudio, atrac.

If you search a bit here I'm sure you will find a lot of discussions and tests about atrac.

This community tries  to do its best not to spread "bad" informations, so when you post something like that someone will tell you to read the rules of the forum 
  • Last Edit: 05 December, 2006, 01:05:44 PM by Mercurio

  • atrac
  • [*]
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #246
Wellcome to Hydrogenaudio, atrac.

If you search a bit here I'm sure you will find a lot of discussions and tests about atrac.

This community tries  to do its best not to spread "bad" informations, so when you post something like that someone will tell you to read the rules of the forum 


Oww, yeah..you right. I'm sorry :$

normally I make clear that it's just my own (subjective) opinion. I've changed that now

@ dutch109:

sorry to you to, I forgot to state that it was my opinion. I completely agree with TOS#8, and I think this is very important on forums like this. I think this is a very good forum, and would never want to mess things up here, so therefore my excuses.

I assume that it is allowed to give your own opinion, as long as you make clear that it's your opinion, and not a fact or something? (like I did now)

thx for the tips ^^

greetz
  • Last Edit: 05 December, 2006, 01:47:11 PM by atrac
- emotion drives the world -

  • Garf
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer (Donating)
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #247
There is nothing that says that TOS8 does not apply to "opinions". Stating something stupid and then trying to get around TOS8 by saying "thats just my opinion" is a no-go.

You should be able to substantiate your opinion, so we can understand it, and decide it's not something you just made up while high on crack. Because if it's the latter, it has no place here.

  • atrac
  • [*]
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #248
@ garf:

I said that my opinion was based on my OWN experiences. I think it should be all-right for one to express his opinion, making clear that it's based on HIS OWN experiences. damn, people fight about these things man......

I thought (excuse me if I'm wrong) that this topic was about your favourite lossy codec. Well, I just explained why I choose atrac. Do I really have to come up with a whole explanation, based on true facts and everything just to make clear why I choose that one???? I just like it, and I've just explained WHY I like it, and mentioned that it's just MY opinion.

so again: sorry that I messed things up in the first post.

greetz
- emotion drives the world -

Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Reply #249
@ garf:

I said that my opinion was based on my OWN experiences. I think it should be all-right for one to express his opinion, making clear that it's based on HIS OWN experiences. damn, people fight about these things man......

I thought (excuse me if I'm wrong) that this topic was about your favourite lossy codec. Well, I just explained why I choose atrac. Do I really have to come up with a whole explanation, based on true facts and everything just to make clear why I choose that one???? I just like it, and I've just explained WHY I like it, and mentioned that it's just MY opinion.

so again: sorry that I messed things up in the first post.

greetz
And your opinion is silly and full of nonsense. Thumbs up to Garf for telling it like it is. If it had been me, I'm sure he would have some harsh words for me.