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.

Poll

MP3
[ 381 ] (32.3%)
OGG
[ 293 ] (24.8%)
AAC
[ 67 ] (5.7%)
MPC
[ 349 ] (29.6%)
WMA
[ 9 ] (0.8%)
RM
[ 0 ] (0%)
VQF
[ 6 ] (0.5%)
MP3Pro
[ 9 ] (0.8%)
Lossless
[ 61 ] (5.2%)
Other
[ 5 ] (0.4%)

Total Members Voted: 1408

Topic: Which lossy format are you using? (Read 117517 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Which lossy format are you using?

Reply #75
Quote
Originally posted by CiTay
I'm still sticking to what i said.

Did you ever hear of something called the "placebo effect"? When you start to play the lossless files in that test of yours, maybe you're unconsciously expecting a different sound from them.

This can have a bigger influence than you may think. In 1998, there was a test performed on more than 2000 people, with the antidepressant "Prozac" and a placebo. You can read about it here: http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume1/pre0010002a.html

The outcome was that half of the drug's effectiveness is on account of the placebo, and only one quarter of the drug response is due to the active medication.

Maybe now you understand why we rely on ABX results, not on feelings.


yes... i've heard about such things.

why does some people listen vinyl? why does some people listen tapes? ...they "feel" better with it!!!!

for some people an classical album becomes the right feeling while listen to an vinyl only. with all the pops and clicks. they spends a lot of money for an deck that costs more than your car. and in summary this deck sounds not as god as my €500 denon cd player [for my ears].

an lossy codec that sounds like an "true" cd where an nice thing. but the true is [for my ears] that mp3 sounds realistic but has many artifacts in high frequencys. vorbis sounds weird, can't describe it. and it's horrible slow. mpc sounds very clean and don't heard any artifact. but it sounds synthetic, lifeless. listen to vanessa maes violin and you understand what i mean. aac i've not tested. mp3pro is a good joke. and wma is no solution for me since i boot windoose only for burning VCD's.

if you "feel" good with your codec use it! if i find anyday "my" codec i will encode my music collection with it.

@fewtch: i agree 100% with your terms. abx is an useful thing for testing at first stage. but the last stage should be "daily_use"!!! and no one decode the files back to wav and hear them on hq headphones on one volume level the whole time. an file have to sound good on headphones, speakers, laptop speakers, in car, on portable, in the hell and on moon at 10% volume or 300% volume or...

Dezibel

Which lossy format are you using?

Reply #76
Quote
It only takes a short time factor into account

thats not a drawback, thats a plus imho, simply meaning u can overcome human short sound memory,

... on the other hand, few years ago i got some burned cds from someone and some were done via mp3->wav, and i didnt know that (l8r said they were 192kbps mp3's, but that doesnt mean much vs the encoder used), well after some time listening them on various audio devices i could point out which cd isnt original..., so i guess after all there is some for me unknown 'time-factor" thats is ignored by abx.

anyway, its a mistery, and it would be great if someone has the real answer. 

(sorry for my english)
PANIC: CPU 1: Cache Error (unrecoverable - dcache data) Eframe = 0x90000000208cf3b8
NOTICE - cpu 0 didn't dump TLB, may be hung

Which lossy format are you using?

Reply #77
Quote
Originally posted by Dezibel

@fewtch: i agree 100% with your terms. abx is an useful thing for testing at first stage. but the last stage should be "daily_use"!!! and no one decode the files back to wav and hear them on hq headphones on one volume level the whole time. an file have to sound good on headphones, speakers, laptop speakers, in car, on portable, in the hell and on moon at 10% volume or 300% volume or...


This is why you perform multiple tests over time and under different circumstances.  Of course just 1 test may be a fluke or may not be representative, but as you perform more testing and the significance of the results increase, at some point the positive results are so likely to hold true over an even greater expanse of time that it's irresponsible to not recognize this.

Is anything ever an absolute 100%? Of course not.  As humans, at some point we have to go with whatever is most likely though (in this case your continued test results showing that it is extremely likely that you can hear a difference), otherwise we'd never get anywhere or ever make any progress.  You can either be irresponsible and go that route blindly, trusting everything as it seems on the surface, or you can attempt to increase your chances of making a good choice by being more critical, by performing tests and making comparisons, and in the end, by just increasing your information store and making an intelligent, informed, and objective decision.

It's up to you, but I surely know which one method I'll go with.

Which lossy format are you using?

Reply #78
CiTay's example of a placebo effect is an excellent one, but... the whole picture is much more complex than suggested.  The conscious knowledge that a boy's mother gives him positive attention and love, nurses him, and gives him something sweet and the subconscious processes that may occur as a result of this knowledge and these actions may have much more to do with "easing the pain" than the boy's belief that this "medicine will be effective."  So many variables, so little time....:eek:

Phobos, the good news is the placebo effect isn't something you have:  It's an effect that we can attribute some of your responses to based on information you know.  So to some extent you are not stuck with it.  It damn sure drys up in good blind listening tests.  When you know what format you're using, those other variables start creeping into your subconscious even if you deny them consciously(by you, I mean you, me and billions of others) and may prejudice your results that you've tried to limit to listening quality alone:

Let's see....
1. I have x000 xyz format files that I don't really want to rip/encode again in another format
2. I've been damn happy with xyz thus far.
3.  People whose opinions I respect use xyz and tout its benefits over other formats
4.  xyz has hardware support now
5.  xyz either is developing at speed of light(if thats what you like) or isn't changing every 3 days making me feel like I need to redo everything.
and a big one...
6.  I've publicly stated my preference for xyz and my disdain for other formats based on non-blind listening comparisons.

While these variables(and others) may properly have their place in decision making, unchecked they WILL interfere with your opinions on audio quality.

What can we do?

1. Test and Train your ears - Learn to recognize the common problems in sound quality and learn and accept the limitations of your own ears and equipment

2. Listen blindly!

3. Recognise that sound quality may or may not be the sole reason for choosing one format

When I said to some extent we're not stuck with the placebo effect, to another extent...it returns.  The idea that you have committed to a format for any number of reasons can subjectively add to your listening pleasure
Yeah, when you call my name
I salivate like a Pavlov dog...

Which lossy format are you using?

Reply #79
EAC for ripping, oggdrop for encoding and winamp for playing :=)

Which lossy format are you using?

Reply #80
Seems I am one of very few to use aac!

And I'm finally getting PC-ABX.  Three times I tried to get it, but was stumped by the website.  A pretty terrible design if you ask me, I don't enjoy reading 20 paragraphs just to find a windows download :-S
< w o g o n e . c o m / l o l >

Which lossy format are you using?

Reply #81
EAC & oggenc.exe combination is in high use. Winamp2 for playing .oggs.

Which lossy format are you using?

Reply #82
Ogg Vorbis.
Live long and prosper!

Which lossy format are you using?

Reply #83
Quote
Is placebo effect just an effect i can get rid off or is it permanent more like a disease???

I started to try vorbis 1.0 against psytel AAC and switching from one to another in ABX tests along with my mediocre ears i got to a point i dont know wich one gets closer to the original wav. man i cant even trust my brain or ears, imagine how anoying it is...

I honestly don't see the problem.
If your brain/ears likes it - it's transparant.
If not - it's not.

Which lossy format are you using?

Reply #84
ABX results may get influenced from tireness/stress. Better take it easy. Also, training improves ABX abilities. It's good to start with easy tests, get used and comfortable with the method, and try harder things after.

As to ABX comparators, I suggest to try mine, at http://www.kikeg.arrakis.es/winabx, it has more features than PCABX, and more will be added in the future.

Which lossy format are you using?

Reply #85
Well, how can I select "Lossless" when the original question was "Which lossy format are you using"? 

But anyway, I use Monkey's Audio and sometimes also mp3 (Lame -aps).

Which lossy format are you using?

Reply #86
I recently tried MPC and instantly became a convert. I used to rip everything Lame -APS, but mpc is twice as fast, gives me smaller file sizes, is gapless, and sounds great (better than Lame according to what I've read). I'm currently re-ripping all my albums to mpc, now I just gotta convince other people to use it.

Which lossy format are you using?

Reply #87
deleted
It's weird just several seconds ago there were less choices  could be a forum problem or it has just been changed, and mad i am not .. MPC for me.

Which lossy format are you using?

Reply #88
I'm new to this boaard, but very glad someone pointed me in this direction.

Do you find that the universal mp3 format is good enough for you?

Yes, I do. Why? Because if I enjoy the album, I go out and buy it anyways. Why MP3 over other formats? Because it has very high compatibility. Not to mention I'm begging an mp3 player for Christmas. :-)

Is MPC meeting your demands precisely?

The person who gave me the URL for this board mentioned mpc to me, but didn't go into a lot of detail. What I did gather is it's not for me at this time.

Or perhaps you've decided to stick with a previous tool and use the DRM plagued formats, RM or WMA.

rm? What supports that? I've never even heard of it. wma? If only I could remove wmp from my machine! Ugh!

Which lossy format are you using?

Reply #89
Quote
I'm new to this boaard, but very glad someone pointed me in this direction.


Welcome

Quote
Do you find that the universal mp3 format is good enough for you?

Yes, I do. Why? Because if I enjoy the album, I go out and buy it anyways.

I believe this sort of makes the assumption that other people only use lossy formats to trade files illegally (or without having owned the album they originated from).  This is certainly not the case.  Many people (like me) use lossy formats to archive hundreds of legally owned CDs onto their harddrive for matters of convenience and security.

Which lossy format are you using?

Reply #90
Quote
Is MPC meeting your demands precisely?

Yes! Very much so! 

Files with lower bitrates and better quality than lame mp3's that playback gapless without any hacks... how can you go wrong? People gain nothing by supporting inferior formats.

Which lossy format are you using?

Reply #91
Quote
Welcome  :)


Thank you.

Quote
I believe this sort of makes the assumption that other people only use lossy formats to trade files illegally (or without having owned the album they originated from). This is certainly not the case. Many people (like me) use lossy formats to archive hundreds of legally owned CDs onto their harddrive for matters of convenience and security.


Ok, so I worded that wrong.... but good call. I know a lot of people do exactly as you have said. I have a ton of comments and questions, but until I learn a bit more about this format, I really can't say much.
One of my reasons for that answer is this- The vast majority of my mp3 collection has been accumalated thru trading data cds full of mp3 albums thru the postal mail. Mp3 is the only format used for this in the group I am in (over 400 people around the world). So that's my big reason.. a different format isn't practical for me right now.

Quote
Files with lower bitrates and better quality than lame mp3's that playback gapless without any hacks... how can you go wrong? People gain nothing by supporting inferior formats.


What do you mean by "gapless"? All that's coming to mind is no space between songs, but you can always set you burner or ripper to not leave a gap.
Also, the person who directed me to this board said that the file size of these mpc files is larger then that of an mp3 of the same bitrate. If that is correct, then why not just rip your mp3's at a higher bitrate and break even?

Which lossy format are you using?

Reply #92
Quote
Also, the person who directed me to this board said that the file size of these mpc files is larger then that of an mp3 of the same bitrate.


 

Bitrate implies filesize, and filesize implies bitrate. They are equivalent!
For instance: a 100 second song at 192 kbps (kbit per second) means :
100*192 kb
(= 19200 kb = 2400 kByte)
= 2.4 MB

(Whether you encode a track with      MPC at 170kbps,
or you encode that same track with    MP3 at 170kbps,
doesn't affect filesize.)

That person will probably have meant that MPC gives you better quality than MP3 at the same bitrate. Yes this is true, and this is true for most other encoders too (mp3pro, wma, ogg vorbis, AAC, ...), MP3 is an old format after all (even though development is still going on).

Which lossy format are you using?

Reply #93
Quote
What do you mean by "gapless"?

Well I don't know whether this is the right place to clarify these things. hmmm yes it is, but using the search function might be very useful too (questions might already have been answered).

Gapless means that there is no shift ('offset') during encoding.
For instance a continuous mixed CD split into separate tracks, and encoded in MP3 will get a small shift, resulting in 'gaps' at the beginning and the end of each track, and thus breaking the  continuity of the CD (indeed annoying on continuous mixes). A solution could be encoding the CD as one big MP3 (so that there are only gaps at the beginning and the end of the CD)
Encoders which don't have the 'shift' drawback are called 'gapless'. 


Which lossy format are you using?

Reply #95
I use MP3 only. I'd consider something better such as MPC or OOG but I like being able to use one format across many platforms including my RioVolt SP250.

I use EAC 0.9b4  w/ Plextor PX-40TW for ripping and Plextor PX-W1210S for burning. I use all recommended settings/procedures for perfect rips (secure, offsets, test & copy ensuring CRCs match, etc). Settings obtained from EAC site, http://www.ping.be/satcp/, etc.

The one exception is that  I *do* use the not recommended C2 error detection (only, not correction) since C2 is supposed to be best implemented by Plextor and I always use test & copy ensuring CRCs match to get a double pass on the CD. I welcome comments on this practice and may post the question later.

Lame 3.92 (Mitiok) --alt-preset standard nohist (I don't need to see the histogram and it takes CPU to display).

I used to follow the r3mix.net recommendations for each new release of lame until I found this forum recently. I made a more serious error by including -Q0 parm after reading the lame doc which still says "-q 0: use slowest & best possible version of all algorithms. -q 0 and -q 1 are slow and may not produce significantly higher quality". I've seen on this forum many others have made the same mistake for the same reason.

Speed doesn't matter. I'll just let my ancient dual PP200 W2K server encode for days if necessary. I want the highest possible quality MP3s without being "extreme" or "insane". Size does matter but not that much. I can live with the rare cases that -aps doesn't result in "transparency". Besides, from this site I learned that -ape and -api prolly won't do any better for those cases. I am considering re-ripping/encoding my entire CD collection (500+) again using -aps and DiBrom's compile of 3.90.2.

I am thankful for the hard working people that have taken the good idea of MP3s and made it great. I’ll try to help when/where I can. When I get a decent sound card and headphones I’ll try some of the listen tests. I’ve learned a lot in the past 18 months of reading, ripping, encoding, listening. The more you learn the more you realize that you don’t know

Which lossy format are you using?

Reply #96
Well, i am a slut a little 
First i started with Xing 192    then Lame 192,224,256,320,some VBR variations, then Ogg, then Lame again, than ogg again, a little Ape, little more Lame again, and currently i am using Mpc.

Which lossy format are you using?

Reply #97
Quote
Well, i am a slut a little  
First i started with Xing 192    then Lame 192,224,256,320,some VBR variations, then Ogg, then Lame again, than ogg again, a little Ape, little more Lame again, and currently i am using Mpc.

Isn't it time to settle down?

Which lossy format are you using?

Reply #98
I want to settle down, but i dont know what to use, is it safe to use mpc or go back to mp3. 

Which lossy format are you using?

Reply #99
I use MPC for my encoding needs for archiving, using the standard profile. I also use lame --alt-preset standard for my mp3 needs (portable and incar mp3 players, as well as sharing with friends).