Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Which is the best choice? (Read 7432 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Which is the best choice?

My Hard Disk is full , and I want to compress my Lossless audio(APE and FLAC) into lossy audio. But which is Recommended at 200-300kbps?

1. AAC
2. MPC -Q8 or Q9
3. WMA9 Pro  -Quality98
4. OGG  -q 8
5. lame MP3  -extreme

Can anyone give me a suggestion? Please tell me the reason A is the Recommended.Thanks

Which is the best choice?

Reply #1 –
At that bitrate all of them should be transparent. Ogg Vorbis and Nero AAC have a slight technological advantage to mp3, but mp3 is supported anywhere. So if you need the music for a DAP or similar, go with mp3. If you plan on using those files on your computer only then go with Ogg (ayumies or lancer version) or Nero AAC.

Which is the best choice?

Reply #2 –
For a bitrate of 200Kbps all of these codecs should be transparent. At least for 99% of all music.

So imo you should base your choice on other criterias:
* Software support (audio players, CD rippers, ..).
* Hardware support (supported by portable players, standalone players, ...).
* Portability to other platforms and/or operating systems.
* Features (containers, tags, ...)
* Encoding/Decoding speed.
* Active development, or not...

Which is the best choice?

Reply #3 –
Lossy encoding is not a replacement for a lossless backup. Make sure you have a safe backup of your lossless files and choose whatever lossy format you like for your daily listening needs. Any of the mentioned codecs will be (very close to) transparant, even at much lower bitrates, depending on your equipment and hearing abilities.

Which is the best choice?

Reply #4 –
My walkman support mp3,wma,ogg,ape ,and I use foobar2000 0.8.3 in Windows2000.

According to Listening Tests only , which is the best ?

Which is the best choice?

Reply #5 –
No real listening test was conducted in that bitrate range. Simply because all of them achieve perceptual transparancy. Only some specific problem samples may cause problems sometimes.
For portable listening, I would suggest to make a choice based on quality/storage space tradeoff and perhaps also other things such as encoding speed.
Encode some of your favourite music to lame -V 4 , Ogg vorbis aotuv -q 5 and take the time to listen. I'm pretty sure the quality will be good enough for portable use.

Which is the best choice?

Reply #6 –
I’d by a new hard drive rather than doing that to all my music. 

Which is the best choice?

Reply #7 –
As already said, lossy is not altenative to lossless for archive.

If you don't plan to buy new drive, WavPack lossy(~400kbps) would be good lossy codec for future transcoding and you can save some space.

Which is the best choice?

Reply #8 –
I take MPC 1.14b or 1.15v --quality 8 --ms 15 --xlevel
long time stable, tested and used in the upper 200k bitrate ranges. (if you wanna save bitrate even more, lower to quality 7)

Which is the best choice?

Reply #9 –
Quote from: user on
I take MPC 1.14b or 1.15v --quality 8 --ms 15 --xlevel
long time stable, tested and used in the upper 200k bitrate ranges. (if you wanna save bitrate even more, lower to quality 7)

I agree, if the music is only going to be used on the computer then MPC is still relevant.
we was young an' full of beans

Which is the best choice?

Reply #11 –
I would also rather buy another harddrive than ditch my lossless files... huge hds are cheap nowadays.

Which is the best choice?

Reply #12 –
Quote from: Fandango on
I would also rather buy another harddrive than ditch my lossless files... huge hds are cheap nowadays.

cheap is a subjective word. there are people in the world that earn less than 50 dollars per month.

Which is the best choice?

Reply #13 –
Quote from: kwanbis on
Quote from: Fandango on

I would also rather buy another harddrive than ditch my lossless files... huge hds are cheap nowadays.

cheap is a subjective word. there are people in the world that earn less than 50 dollars per month.

Yes, and not everyone that can afford a huge HD wants to fill it up with lossless files.
we was young an' full of beans

Which is the best choice?

Reply #14 –
Well, if the cost of hardware equipment is so important then I'd suggest using Ogg Vorbis auToV -q -1 

Which is the best choice?

Reply #15 –
Being aware that there is some discussion about the expected lifespan of optical media, I burn my lossless files to DVD+R. In my country these media (of a renown brand) cost about 0.40 € a piece (0.09 €/GB).

Which is the best choice?

Reply #16 –
Personally I would recommend ogg Vorbis to you if you want something lossy.  No need to use such high bitrates though... probably use -q4 for perfect transparency, or -q3 or -q2 if you want to save space, and still have great sounding files.

If you're really planning on ditching your lossless files, and are mainly going to listen on the computer, use WavPack hybrid mode at about 400 kb/s, and you can later transcode to whatever you like with near-perfect quality.

I would recommend backing up your files to DVD, as Hanky suggested.  It's what I do, and it's quite inexpensive and fairly practical these days.  I think that if you do have a lot of data to backup though, it's nearly as cost effective and a lot more convenient to get a hard drive in the 300GB range with an inexpensive external enclosure.  Such a setup should cost under $0.30 per Gigabyte.

(BTW, do people who make less than $50 per month actually own modern computers, have internet access, and seriously concern themselves with the intricacies of audio encoding?)

Which is the best choice?

Reply #17 –
And you can use -q6 if you're worried about any possible stereo artifacts (-q6 has lossless stereo coupling), though it probably won't make much of a difference anyway.

Which is the best choice?

Reply #18 –
Quote
1. AAC
2. MPC -Q8 or Q9
3. WMA9 Pro -Quality98
4. OGG -q 8
5. lame MP3 -extreme

Can anyone give me a suggestion? Please tell me the reason A is the Recommended.Thanks


Start off abxing and then go from there.  If your player supports Vorbis go with Vorbis. If you need compatibility go with Lame. I would do FLAC -> Vorbis, because the standard Vorbis encoder excepts lossless input files. It's up to you. 
budding I.T professional

Which is the best choice?

Reply #19 –
At 200k they're all fine.  You'd have to go a lot lower for it to matter.

I'd use MP3 just because its going to be supported on every device out there.
 

Which is the best choice?

Reply #21 –
from your player specs, i'd choose lame or vorbis.

for battery usage, lame will probably be better... at that bitrate any respectable codec will do fine


later