Hydrogenaudio Forums

Hydrogenaudio Forum => Polls => Topic started by: rc55 on 05 July, 2002, 06:42:26 PM

Poll
Question:
Option 1: MP3 votes: 381
Option 2: OGG votes: 293
Option 3: AAC votes: 66
Option 4: MPC votes: 349
Option 5: WMA votes: 9
Option 6: RM votes: 0
Option 7: VQF votes: 6
Option 8: MP3Pro votes: 9
Option 9: Lossless votes: 61
Option 10: Other votes: 5
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: rc55 on 05 July, 2002, 06:42:26 PM
A classic question with varied answers, I'm sure. Be as elaborate about your choice, settings and setup as possible.

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

Perhaps you like the free ride of ogg vorbis?

Is AAC your future format of choice?

Is MPC meeting your demands precisely?

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

Ruairi



[span style='font-size:9'](edit)[/span]

Explanations:

Code: [Select]
MP3  Mpeg-1 Audio Layer 3

OGG  Ogg Vorbis

AAC  MPEG2/4 Advanced Audio Coding

MPC  MusePack

WMA  Windows Media Audio

RM      RealMedia

VQF    Vector Quantisation Format

MP3Pro    MP3+SBR



Lossless

    APE/FLAC/OptimFrog/LPAC...

    

Other

    LQT/AupecG2/QDX/MP2/WAV/...
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: rc55 on 05 July, 2002, 06:49:31 PM
I'm using MPC for the time being, because its super fast at encoding, and the standard profile meets all my needs.

I use EAC for ripping, using CiTay's recommended settings.

Ruairi
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: Pri3st on 05 July, 2002, 06:50:22 PM
Mp3.
It's just enough good for my ears:)
And it's fully supported by every audio software.
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: rjamorim on 05 July, 2002, 06:55:24 PM
Blah. Does anybody here still doesn't know which format I'm using?
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: rc55 on 05 July, 2002, 06:58:31 PM
For those who havent been Roberto'd, he's using AAC, for Ivan IST God, the power and the glory.

Ruairi
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: HotshotGG on 05 July, 2002, 07:03:52 PM
Ogg Vorbis, it's free, it's open, it's smooth,  and it's stupendous. Thank god for Monty and anyone who helps out and works on the project. Blessed their little hearts.



Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: Phobos on 05 July, 2002, 07:19:39 PM
Maybe AAC is the only format right now that has true transparent quality at high bitrates and still has hardware support. Its possible that vorbis will in a near future, but since i wan backups now, ill stick to AAC ATM
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: westgroveg on 05 July, 2002, 08:35:40 PM
Only on this forum will you see MPC the most used format, most people here are a bit obsessed with perfect quality I think. I choose Mp3, L.A.M.E --alt-preset extreme for just that bit extra, you have the highest compatibility & I would predict it will continue growing the only thing that can knock out Mp3 is OGG because its free & looks like it can grow but not for a while, I think. the big companies & consumers don’t like change they want stability not pay big bucks for something that will be replaced/obsolete in a couple of years.
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: macdaddy on 05 July, 2002, 09:30:20 PM
I used to use MusePack. I was very happy with the results, and am grateful for the learning experience. But the more I get into building a digital audio library, the more I realize that lossless encoding is the obvious choice...

I am one of the two (at present count) who chose lossless audio compression")...
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: smg on 05 July, 2002, 10:03:13 PM
It's MPC for me and of course everyone should know by now I use
--braindead --minSMR 3
Still catching alot of greive over this but I can spare the harddrive space
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: DigitalMan on 06 July, 2002, 12:57:59 AM
:naughty:
Well, liking the Monkey and transcode off to MP3 for portability needs.  Takes a lot of storage space though....

Like MP3 for portable applications - the ambient noise levels in airplanes and cars makes a LAME MP3 file sound fine, but I need the lossless on the big rig at home.

Cheers.
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: andy2kxp on 06 July, 2002, 03:55:34 AM
MPC in general and Monkey's for archiving
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: shday on 06 July, 2002, 07:27:53 AM
ogg seems to be catching up in the poll.

Maybe it is because less frequent visitors/posters are more likely to be ogg users.

... or it's just fluke... we will see
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: dev0 on 06 July, 2002, 08:17:55 AM
I'm playing around with Ogg and MPC at the moment. Both are great, but completely different formats and I like them both. Ogg sounds fine at -q 5 for me, MPC does at --standard.
What I like especially about Ogg is the simple, but powerful tagging (I do a lot of bootlegging, so LOCATION=Düsseldorf is just great) and exactly this is UMO the weak site of MPC (no standard tagging). I will probably switch completely to Ogg, when Frank officially starts working on it or the first Oggable portable players are out.
dev0
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: Volcano on 06 July, 2002, 08:37:42 AM
MPC --xtreme for me at the moment (and sometimes, if I want a lossless copy, FLAC). Since I have no intentions of buying a portable player (CD walkman is all right for me)...

Once all the tuning is done on Vorbis and RC4 is out, I'll see about switching to Vorbis, though. It's such a damn difficult decision, has been bugging me for weeks now
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: rocketsauce on 06 July, 2002, 08:43:06 AM
Started out with MP3 (LAME insane), but then read about HA and Musepack on r3mix Forum, so then I decided it was crazy to use all that harddrive space encoding at 320, and since I'm still using dial-up, P2P sharing wasn't really an issue, so started using MPC (extreme).  I still have a lot of MP3s (of varying quality) that friends give me every now and then (I have hours of stuff from NPG Music Club that I still have never listened to).

The last couple of weeks I've been playing around with OGG and FLAC.  Now my dilema is whether or not I'm just going to commit and go lossless since I've decided in a year or two the harddrive space issue will mostly be nonexistent .  Portability and P2P really isn't an issue for me at this point, but FLAC does have the Phatbox/Music Keg support which is kinda cool and most likely there will be some kind of hardware support for OGG soon.  But then there is also the whole problem of deciding between Monkey and FLAC.  Aaahhh!

Basically, now I'm just kinda confused about what I want to do, so I've stopped doing anything.

Rob
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: Frank Klemm on 06 July, 2002, 09:18:03 AM
The kind of the question and the possible answers are looking like taken
from the book "How to lie with statistics" (ISBN: 0393310728)



1st big error: You can only give one answer, even when you have all sort of files
2nd big error: You ask whta the people thing, not what they really have (So I was astonished about the amount of MP3s I have):

Code: [Select]
Computer at home:



       duration        bitrate         source          note:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

LPAC    10338 min       806 kbps        CDs             ca. 50 CD-ROM's with LPAC are not taken into

OFR       527 min       577 kbps        FM radio/textbook CDs

FLAC      119 min      1171 kbps        FM radio

MAC         2 min       721 kbps        Internet download

SZIP        2 min       103 kbps        Synthetic test files

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

MP3     16294 min           kbps        Internet download

MPC       477 min       188 kbps        test files, generated on the fly when needed

MP2        35 min       150 kbps        test files

OGG         8 min       121 kbps        test files

AAC         4 min       113 kbps        test files

MP3Pro      1 min        64 kbps        test files

WMA         ?                           test files

RM          ?                           test files

VQF         ?                           test files





Computer at work:



       duration        bitrate         source

----------------------------------------------------------------

MPC     ca. 15000 min   ca. 180 kbps    LPACs at home on HD+CD-R


I should answer with MP3, although these amount of files is the result of a robot I
used in 2000.

BTW:
Resizing of the Netscape window now works without erasing contents
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: Corsair on 06 July, 2002, 09:23:19 AM
Started with LAME, but it turned out that MP3 just isn't enough quality for me. I also don't like MP3 because it isn't truly gapless. MPC is great, but it isn't completely free and open. Lossless was an option, but the compression just isn't efficient enough (heavy metal has bad compression ratio) so I ended up with Ogg Vorbis, using RC2 Garf Tuned 2 (no pre-echo as far as I can tell), acceptable file size (~300-320kbps), fully gapless (yes!) and great tagging system.
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: fewtch on 06 July, 2002, 09:27:22 AM
Quote
Originally posted by rocketsauce
The last couple of weeks I've been playing around with OGG and FLAC.  Now my dilema is whether or not I'm just going to commit and go lossless since I've decided in a year or two the harddrive space issue will mostly be nonexistent .

Why, will they be making hard drives that don't have a MTBF rating and won't occasionally die or get corrupted for some reason (resulting in loss of hundreds of "lossless" files)?

I use lossless for archiving to some extent (mainly vinyl recordings), but even there it won't be too convenient until some writable DVD format drops in price (you can't fit too much lossless stuff onto a CD-R).

As far as lossy, I see no reason to abandon MP3 at the moment... my portable player supports it, and with the --alt-presets it's transparent for the most part.
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: shday on 06 July, 2002, 09:38:09 AM
hmm,  I voted for ogg because it was my "favorite"... :eek:

But my hard drive has roughly 100 times more megs of MP3 than ogg...

And I definitely do more casual listening to MP3 than ogg.

Time for a new poll!
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: Phobos on 06 July, 2002, 11:23:15 AM


But wtf, lets hope that vorbis gets real good quality at high bitrates, i only backup my own cds in AAC, as i said because i want transparent backing up now. The ones i rip other ppl's cds are in monkey. I would surely switch to ogg since my cd-rw has precise DAE but probably wavelets wont get truly good till vorbis 1.3 or stuff, and thats too much to wait...

Corsair: Yeah, mp3 has not enough quality for me anymore too,
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: lucpes on 06 July, 2002, 11:44:27 AM
56 GB in MPC and only 1GB of mp3s (rare stuff but Xing I used before...) - rest deleted of I gave away the mp3 CD's I burnt

30GB - my encodes, the rest downloaded from AquA...
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: smok3 on 06 July, 2002, 11:46:29 AM
different formats, but my choice for future will be ogg-vorbis (maybe).

-mp3 (abr 128 preset) for movies i make from captured mjpeg avis (+divx)
-ogg for music at 48 khz and home music at 44.1.
-mpc for home music and music that is decoded back to wavs for editing.

'home music' = not so important stuff i listen in background.

smok3

p.s. yeah, decoded
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: lucpes on 06 July, 2002, 11:49:41 AM
Quote
Originally posted by smok3
-mpc for home music and music that is transcoded back to wavs for editing.


more like decoded back to wav

[span style='font-size:9']edit: typo[/span]
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: silver_cpu on 06 July, 2002, 12:03:50 PM
I use MPC myself, and have found it more than adequate in quality and speed, in most situations.  I'm still waiting for SV8 to come out, which should fix the one gripe that I have with MPC (it's infamous "internal clipping errors" message).  I use --xtreme --xlevel, and 99.99% of the time enjoy hassle free, high quality music.  I do, however, keep all of my CDs around, just in case the format undergoes some serious changes in the future

I too am amazed at just how competitive MPC is with the other formats, coming out on top over even OGG, which seems to really be picking up some steam of it's own.
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: rjamorim on 06 July, 2002, 12:18:34 PM
Quote
Originally posted by silver_cpu
I too am amazed at just how competitive MPC is with the other formats, coming out on top over even OGG, which seems to really be picking up some steam of it's own.


Heh. But keep in mind that this is an audiophile forum. MPC is competitive only here, 99% of the people out there haven't ever heard about this format.

Same goes to AAC.

That's the typical kind of misleading poll - I.E: The universe of people consulted is too small and involves people with similar interests in the same field. It can't be taken seriously as "format usage" or "format acceptation" at all, except for the universe consulted. I.E: It's not representative.
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: AgentMil on 06 July, 2002, 12:27:30 PM
Would I be correct to say "99% of the people out there, use MP3"?

Which is not a terribly bad codec for its age.

I use MPC --xtreme, the nicest and fastest audio format

Cheers
AgentMil
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: rjamorim on 06 July, 2002, 12:31:10 PM
Quote
Originally posted by AgentMil
Would I be correct to say "99% of the people out there, use MP3"?


Nope, because there are lots of $%$#! out there using WMA.
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: CiTay on 06 July, 2002, 12:35:01 PM
Quote
Originally posted by rjamorim

Nope, because there are lots of $%$#! out there using WMA.


Yeah.

But it fills me with pride to see that this board is WMA-free as yet! :love3:
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: silver_cpu on 06 July, 2002, 01:13:54 PM
It will likely stay WMA-free for a while, anyway.  I'm very, very curious about the new Windows Media Pro that Microsoft is releasing.  It's actually been accepted by some major names in the pro audio business, names that I trust for quality, and is designed to stream compressed 96khz/24bit 6-channel audio...should be *very* interesting to see if they can pull this off.  If so, it would still be highly proprietary, but might have it's uses, such as video CDs (their video format is supposed to be able to far surpass DVD video quality at the same data rate) that you want to keep the 6-channel audio on, or maybe the compression of DVD-A discs.  Don't think I have a link, but I'm sure there's a press release or two around, Hi-Fi+ magazine released an article on it in their June issue, if I'm not mistaken.

Off-topic: Hi-Fi+ also wrote an entry about the sudden resurgence of vinyl, and the wide range of music available on the format  long live analog!!
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: Emmett_v2 on 06 July, 2002, 01:37:25 PM
Hmm. I guess it all depends on the application.

When I have a CD, I'll typically just play a CD. When I want to have music from that CD on my computer, I'll rip the CD into ogg. When that CD contains information I want to sample and use in an original composition, I'll just rip it to .wav for audio editing purposes.

When I have music that I've composed myself, I'll render it and publish it online as an ogg file.

When I'm sharing music with friends, I'll give them ogg's unless they specifically request mp3 files (for their portable music players, etc). When people share music with me, they'll usually give me mp3 files because that's what they use. If they're good friends, they'll usually just bring a CD for me to rip.

So, which lossy format am I using? Depends on the application, time of day, phase of the moon and whether or not peaches are in season.

Emmett Plant
CEO, Xiph.org Foundation
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: Cygnus X1 on 06 July, 2002, 01:45:51 PM
Re: WMA pro. It will be highly amusing (and interesting) to see if MS can really pull that off. From what I read they are claiming that a 6-channel 24/96 stream will compress down to 128kbps. I don't think so  MS is also claiming that a 48kbps file will sound like a 128kbps mp3. But then again, when using a Blade encoder from 1997 in regular-stereo mode to generate your mp3 samples, anything sounds good in comparison . We've all heard this before. . . let's wait and see (or hear) how outrageous MS's claims are on this version of the WMA codec.

As far as format choice, I use MPC and Ogg. Lossless would be nice, but until they come out with 1TB HDD's, it is impossible considering the amount of records/CD's I own. For portable use, I have to use --alt-preset standard due to the fact that mp3 is still the king of portability. I am anxiously awaiting Ogg hardware support!
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: iwod on 06 July, 2002, 02:07:12 PM
I use either MPC or Ogg. And since frank has decided to work on Ogg.... i am a bit stuck..... but hopefully time will tell what the hell is going on behind the sence.
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: CiTay on 06 July, 2002, 02:16:44 PM
Quote
Originally posted by iwod
I use either MPC or Ogg. And since frank has decided to work on Ogg.... i am a bit stuck..... but hopefully time will tell what the hell is going on behind the sence.


Didn't you read the other thread? He merely took a look at it for now. Not even the Ogg folks know what's gonna happen on this issue.
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: B on 06 July, 2002, 02:51:56 PM
I switched from MP3 to MPC a while back, and i'm very pleased with it so far. Probably the biggest reason i switched is the true gapless encoding and very nice winamp plugin to go with it. Most of my cd's are mixed/seamless tracks/live albums so it is pretty important to me. As i don't care for portable playback MPC has only advantages for me.

- Gapless
- Superb quality at --standard (which i use for personal playback)
- Relative small filesize
- Fast encoding
- Replaygain support
- Direct piping of my lossless files
- APE tags
- Good preset system

I would even pay for the sucker if it should become shareware (or something diferent) because of patented stuff used.
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: fewtch on 06 July, 2002, 03:16:08 PM
Quote
Originally posted by silver_cpu
Off-topic: Hi-Fi+ also wrote an entry about the sudden resurgence of vinyl, and the wide range of music available on the format  long live analog!!

Interesting article:

http://hometheater.about.com/library/weekly/aa041499.htm (http://hometheater.about.com/library/weekly/aa041499.htm)

It basically reflects my own experience: Vinyl records transferred to CD keeps the "analog vinyl sound" (whatever that is), thus probably consists of various types of distortion.  Hate to say it, but I don't think vinyl is a "better" medium that CD for those who want closest to "live" sound quality (transparency) rather than "warmth."

Edit -- sorry I'm off-topic too...
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: rocketsauce on 06 July, 2002, 03:45:17 PM
Quote
Why, will they be making hard drives that don't have a MTBF rating and won't occasionally die or get corrupted for some reason (resulting in loss of hundreds of "lossless" files)?


Of course, that's an issue no matter what format you're using.  I guess the question might be, if my hard drive crashes, would I rather lose hundreds of lossless or thousands of compressed files.
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: macdaddy on 07 July, 2002, 06:15:14 AM
With a RAID, the risk of file loss due to disk drive failure becomes a non-issue...
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: Sachankara on 07 July, 2002, 07:44:00 AM
I use AAC for storing my music on the HD, MP3 for my Rio Volt SP100 and FLAC for backups stored on CDR discs...  FLAC also makes re-ripping a whole lot easier, faster and more secure...
Quote
Originally posted by macdaddy
With a RAID, the risk of file loss due to disk drive failure becomes a non-issue...
Depends on what type of RAID and what brand and models of HD:s...
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: gnoshi on 07 July, 2002, 07:45:02 PM
Seems I'm running as a bit of an exception. I answered OGG to the poll, and the files I have (38GB ogg, 2GB mp3) support that.

ogg -q 5 is my friend (that and a bottle of vodka).

gnoshi
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: David Nordin on 08 July, 2002, 01:40:38 AM
I went from mp3 --ape some time back to MPC, and I'll never go back =)
Why? SoundQuality!!!
Maybe if I get a portable mp3 player, then I'd use --a-p f s -Y
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: sam on 08 July, 2002, 09:07:26 AM
I chose MPC although I'm not a serious user as yet (only tried it a week or so ago). I've loads of MP3s that I have encoded with aps (and will continue to do so for my gf and sis). I picked MPC because its fast, pretty much mature and I like the gain support. For me MPC just feels right, every thing I need is included, and i's done very well. I really like AAC and the prospect of portables running it seems not too bad - but I didn't pick it because of no replay gain and no decent tagging. I just hope that MPC sticks around, and I can't wait to get me mitts on SV8 and build my Jukebox
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: smok3 on 08 July, 2002, 04:44:52 PM
Quote
Originally posted by fewtch
Vinyl records transferred to CD keeps the "analog vinyl sound" (whatever that is), thus probably consists of various types of distortion.


q: is there a plug for soundforge that will simulate the vinyl sound/scratches + speed changes one can do manualy on the turntable? (bit off topic  ), iam trying to do an audio edit for some personal demo cd.
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: rjamorim on 08 July, 2002, 05:08:12 PM
Yes.
iZotope Vinyl (It's a DirectX filter, BTW)

http://www.izotope.com/products/audio/vinyl/vinyl.html (http://www.izotope.com/products/audio/vinyl/vinyl.html)
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: smok3 on 08 July, 2002, 08:50:17 PM
Quote
Originally posted by rjamorim
Yes.
iZotope Vinyl (It's a DirectX filter, BTW)


nice, tnx 

i guess that directx has some limits, there is no way to stop or start a record ? (i wanted that 'swissssscrach' starting sound as well - like when u hold a record and then let it go...)
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: wtkwest on 08 July, 2002, 09:23:52 PM
I had been using .mp3 with a cbr of 192, until I started dumping some cassettes that I can't get on CD into the computer.  Since everything about cassettes is so poor, I figured that I could use just about any encoder and get good results...  I started by recording the cassette at 48KHz through my crummy soundcard.

I tried wma (96 and 160k [44.1]), mp3 (cbr 192, vbr High (192ish) vbr VH (256-ish)), mp3Pro (96), ogg (q6 and q8), and vqf (96)...

I expected ogg to win, from what I'd read, but ogg created some truly bizzare overtones that were not in my reference .wav file! I thought it might be "OggDrop" so I ran the test from command line vorbis tools 1.0rc3, with the same result.

The overwhelming winner in my little test was .vqf...  Second place for my little test: wma (?!!!?)... Then vbr mp3.

Now thanks to this site, I've a few more formats to try.

Now as for my ears, I would like to add that they hate JBL, Yamaha sound reinforcement, Roland, and other popular manufacturers gear.  So I'd be interested to see if there is a trend between the "color of sound" that we prefer and encoders...
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: rjamorim on 08 July, 2002, 09:28:54 PM
Quote
Originally posted by wtkwest
The overwhelming winner in my little test was .vqf...  Second place for my little test: wma (?!!!?)... Then vbr mp3.


Poor guy. He'll be flamed to death.
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: rjamorim on 08 July, 2002, 09:41:14 PM
Quote
Originally posted by CiTay
But it fills me with pride to see that this board is WMA-free as yet! :love3:


Not anymore.

Just out of curiosity: Who voted for WMA?
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: Dezibel on 08 July, 2002, 10:10:33 PM
i'm using mpc in general.

i switched to lossless [Flac] for a week or so...  but most of my albums [metal, progressive rock etc.] are bigger than 400Mb. so backups on CDR are not such an good thing.

however... i decided to "live" with lossy quality for daily use and archive nothing but the original Audio CD's. On my 80Gb drive on home computer i can store 2 Operating Sytems, 10Gb videos and documents, and 50Gb music. so with 256kbs quality [~100Mb for each album] it's ~500 albums. that's enough for daily use  and on a laptop with 20Gb hd i can store 2 Operating Systems +10Gig documents and music. thats ~80 ... 100 albums. 80 albums should be enough for one working day. no admin on this planet can hear 80 albums while working on unix machines without sleep or updating the music archive on laptop :insane:

most music encodet with --standard --ltq fil sounds "transparent" for my destroyed musician ears  but the feeling goes away a little bit. remember to a point at mp3 256kbs [radium hacked Fhg codec] sounds very very "realistic" for me i decided to switch to --insane --minSMR0 witch brings bitrates ~250kbs.

looks like i go right with these settings since a few albums sounds "better" than the original cd.

Dezibel

--
Don't drink and Root!
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: silver_cpu on 08 July, 2002, 10:54:06 PM
Well, not necessarily flamed, just mostly ignored.  Those at this site know the technical background and limitations of vqf and wma, and therefore know why they're both (currently) inferior formats.  wma shows some future, as it currently has a major development team backing it.  vqf, however, has been totally discontinued (to my best knowledge), and so has no future.  I would advise you, wtkwest, to get a different format.  vqf has none of the advantages of a well-accepted format (such as mp3 and wma, which are widely used and supported on nearly every format), and all of the disadvantages of less-known and less-used formats (such as lack of hardware support, multi-platform support, and, in this case, continued development).  Please save yourself a lot of future headache, and find yourself another format.  If you simply must have minute files, then choose ogg or wma, maybe mp3pro if it turns out to have appeal to the masses in the end.  I personally prefer mpc above all others, but each person here has his own taste and pair of ears, and it's likely that another format will satisfy you as well.  It's not like mpc gives you huge files, though.  At it's standard preset (which is designed to be high-quality, not some compromised "standard"), I normally get bitrates of 120-160 on average, give or take for less or more demanding music.  ogg is highly capable of handling smaller bitrates, as is aac.  aac, however, is very slow (encoding normally reaches a maximum of 2-3X for my AMD 850Mhz comp.).  It looks like some portables will support aac and ogg in the future.  I hope that maybe this will convince you to take another listen to your songs, and really listen hard.  Try to find yourself a good pair of headphones with flat response (Sennheizer is a well-known and trusted brand for giving high-definition, uncolored and natural-sounding audio, especially they're higher-end headphones, such as the popular HD-580s pictured in the Hydrogen Audio logo up above), and really give things a listen.  If you're uncertain what to listen for, go to www.pcabx.com (http://www.pcabx.com), and check out some of their samples, so that you can get a better idea of exactly what problems some encoders have, and what you should listen for.

Dezibel, I think that the settings for mpc that you settled on are overkill.  You might want to try out --xtreme.  This setting was designed for people who were not quite totally satisfied with --standard.  It is the setting that I use, and I'm totally happy with it.  Basically, it's one step above --standard, but changes some of the presets, such as the ltq (or ath, whichever you prefer to call it) to give you slightly higher quality, and comparable bitrates.  Try --xtreme some time, or one of the new number quality levels, and just keep going up until you figure out what's best for you.  Note, however, that even though you can go up to 10, 6-7 is more than enough, and anything above 8 (and in most cases less) is truely overkill, and a waste of hdd space.
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: Benjamin Lebsanft on 09 July, 2002, 12:28:30 AM
vqf better than mp3 or vorbis and mpc ? What speakers are you using :eek: ???
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: Negative Zero on 09 July, 2002, 03:51:10 AM
I mostly stick to LAME --alt-preset standard -Y encoded MP3's for most of my digital audio files because of the size, quality, and hardware playback support (on my iRiver SlimX). Every once in a while, I do encode a few tracks into MPC, but until I see hardware support for that format, I can't be bothered to give up MP3 in favor of MPC.
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: lucpes on 09 July, 2002, 07:27:01 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Dezibel

...a few albums sounds "better" than the original cd.


And here we go to CD+ quality
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: Dezibel on 09 July, 2002, 07:31:27 AM
Quote
Originally posted by lucpes


And here we go to CD+ quality


i forgot the  smiley

Dezibel
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: Dezibel on 09 July, 2002, 07:46:41 AM
Quote
Originally posted by silver_cpu
Dezibel, I think that the settings for mpc that you settled on are overkill.  You might want to try out --xtreme.  This setting was designed for people who were not quite totally satisfied with --standard.  It is the setting that I use, and I'm totally happy with it.  Basically, it's one step above --standard, but changes some of the presets, such as the ltq (or ath, whichever you prefer to call it) to give you slightly higher quality, and comparable bitrates.  Try --xtreme some time, or one of the new number quality levels, and just keep going up until you figure out what's best for you.  Note, however, that even though you can go up to 10, 6-7 is more than enough, and anything above 8 (and in most cases less) is truely overkill, and a waste of hdd space.


i agree that --xtreme sounds transparent from point of frequency spectrum on most songs. i did some ABX tests a few weeks ago where mpc decoded back to wave sounds almost identical to the source wave at bitrates higher than --standard. but for me on hq headphones [akg k141 or 240df] the sound of an mpc compared with the wave file sounds a little bit "thin". i need more compression or pressure to became the same "feeling". and i'm sure that it is not an psychical problem. --insane or --braindead [--quality 7 or 8] sounds good for me from point of "pressure".

...you can compare with image compression. while jpeg compression is designed to save subjective image quality. the jpeg filters on photoshop looks like the colors where displaced a little bit. and the sharpness is lost. the jpeg filters on my linux system [using gimp or the convert command on commandline] looks like the colors are fine, sharpness are fine, but there are little artifacts at fonts and little details. you can life with 90 percent jpeg quality or save the last 2 bits using an lossless compression like png. if ypu want an preview pic on your website for fast download than you have to go with small files. but if you want to archive anything you have to decide how many bits you can spend to save hard work for generations

Dezibel
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: God eat God on 13 July, 2002, 01:04:04 AM
Aim bit-rate: ~150 - ~170

Type of music: very complex : allot of black-metal (Dimmu Borgir), metal (Grave Digger, Judas Priest, Slayer, Metallica)

Sound quality: best for the bit-rate. i don't need precise average bit-rate. i used mp3 LAME --alt-preset standard -Y, but it ended ~175kbs (a bit too high, but it's not THAT important), and more important, a bit 'thin'. it didn't sound the same.

Sharing / portability: none. The only person that will hear what I've encoded is myself, on my PC, with my excellent headphones.  so it's ok to use mpc, even dough it's not popular/can't use it on a portable player.

So, will mpc --standard will give me better quality for the specified music (it's ok if it ends with SLIGHTLY higher bit-rate...)? Will OGG -q4.99? Any other format?
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: Dibrom on 13 July, 2002, 01:15:56 AM
Quote
Originally posted by God eat God

So, will mpc --standard will give me better quality for the specified music (it's ok if it ends with SLIGHTLY higher bit-rate...)?


Yes.

Quote
Will OGG -q4.99? Any other format?


I'm not sure.  I haven't done any testing with the later builds of rc4 or 1.0.  There should be a q val that will give you similar quality, but I'm not sure sure what it'd be right now.
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: Dibrom on 13 July, 2002, 01:21:04 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Dezibel
i agree that --xtreme sounds transparent from point of frequency spectrum on most songs. i did some ABX tests a few weeks ago where mpc decoded back to wave sounds almost identical to the source wave at bitrates higher than --standard. but for me on hq headphones [akg k141 or 240df] the sound of an mpc compared with the wave file sounds a little bit "thin". i need more compression or pressure to became the same "feeling". and i'm sure that it is not an psychical problem. --insane or --braindead [--quality 7 or 8] sounds good for me from point of "pressure".


Umm... am I understanding this right?  You did abx tests finding that the encoded output was perceptually identical to you, yet you are still implying there is some difference that you can hear, but that you can't abx (so you basically can't hear it)?

Heh.

It's always the same.  "Thin", "feeling", "lack of bass", etc.  Yet no positive abx results to back any of it up.  I guess some people will just never give up their delusions even after proving to themselves in a blind test that they can't hear the difference.
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: God eat God on 13 July, 2002, 01:29:40 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Dibrom


Yes.



I'm not sure.  I haven't done any testing with the later builds of rc4 or 1.0.  There should be a q val that will give you similar quality, but I'm not sure sure what it'd be right now.


10x dibrom. I thought I heard somewhere that mpc isn't optimized for metal... anyway, so this is the best codec for < 170kbs black-metal / metal out there? (What about AAC? or anything else?)

what about the new OGG 1.0 and metal, anyone?
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: Dibrom on 13 July, 2002, 01:39:13 AM
Quote
Originally posted by God eat God


10x dibrom. I thought I heard somewhere that mpc isn't optimized for metal...


Dunno where you heard that.  If you did actually hear it, I'm pretty certain that it was just some unverified rumours (as usual).

Quote
anyway, so this is the best codec for < 170kbs black-metal / metal out there?


Well, mpc -standard is generally transparent on most files to most people (yes, even the "golden ears"), at a bitrate around 160kbps.  Take that as you want, but that means that it's certainly good at metal, yes.

Quote
(What about AAC? or anything else?)


AAC is also a good choice if you use a good encoder.  PsyTEL AAC is usually the encoder of choice since it is the highest quality "publically" available AAC encoder.

Quote
what about the new OGG 1.0 and metal, anyone?


Vorbis should do well also.

Again, MPC has kind of a proven track record with the -standard setting like I said, but you shouldn't do bad with AAC or Vorbis either.

The quality of all of these codecs are usually so high that the decision on which format to use falls to the other aspects/features of the encoder that one will use.
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: Neo Neko on 13 July, 2002, 02:23:37 AM
Quote
Originally posted by lucpes


And here we go to CD+ quality


What you mean that if WMA is CD quality at 64Kbps and I raise the bitrate I get no increase in quality? Such blasphemy?! Lord Bill shall hear of this. We will smite you all. Smite smite smite. Love that word. Blame the new Microsoft math ™. Just like the old math only buggier and prone to incorrect output. LOL

OGG for me with a little MPC/AAC on the side.
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: SometimesWarrior on 13 July, 2002, 04:45:34 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Dibrom
Umm... am I understanding this right?  You did abx tests finding that the encoded output was perceptually identical to you, yet you are still implying there is some difference that you can hear, but that you can't abx (so you basically can't hear it)?

Heh.

It's always the same.  "Thin", "feeling", "lack of bass", etc.  Yet no positive abx results to back any of it up.  I guess some people will just never give up their delusions even after proving to themselves in a blind test that they can't hear the difference.
Well I do remember this post (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=13870#post13870), where Dezibel actually made test samples and ABX results available. Was anything ever done to follow up on this report?
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: KikeG on 13 July, 2002, 04:51:51 AM
I use MP3, LAME --alt-preset standard --lowpass 18 is good enough for me. I guess --lowpass 17 or -Y could be too, I would have to test it seriously.

However, when doing "quality" listening, sometimes I still prefer uncompressed, it gives me a "mental" feeling of greater "quality", or that I feel "safer" about the quality.

But I guess it's just a psychological thing, since I can't say it is better on a objective blind test, and I really believe that for me they are undistinguishable on regular music.
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: Dibrom on 13 July, 2002, 05:33:04 PM
Quote
Originally posted by SometimesWarrior
Well I do remember this post (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=13870#post13870), where Dezibel actually made test samples and ABX results available. Was anything ever done to follow up on this report?


The problem is that the abx test results were not very significant. 8/10 trials in only 1 test isn't really enough to be "sure" I don't think.  Secondly, one of the trials where he got 7/10 on the first try, he later was only able to get 8/15.

The results just aren't really strongly enough in favor of an actual difference being heard reliably.  One way to increase the significance would be to increase the number of trials, or to repeat the tests multiple tries.  None of that has been done though..
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: stoff on 13 July, 2002, 05:33:05 PM
Ack... pick your poison, right?

Well, I'm quite happy with LAME --alt-preset standard for my Rio Volt. (Thanks a lot to Dibrom!)

I don't listen to music on my computer so all good albums that I come by are just copied the old fashion CDR-way. Hardware support dictates everything for me, so I'm looking forward to ogg (or even better MPC support) on a PocketPC with 512MB flash ram! 

Regards, stoff
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: wtkwest on 14 July, 2002, 04:39:47 PM
Quote
Originally posted by silver_cpu
If you simply must have minute files, then choose ogg or wma, maybe mp3pro if it turns out to have appeal to the masses in the end. 


I wasn't after particularly small files.  What I was after was to basically prove to myself that mp3 @ cbr 192 was really a decent format, and that ogg would be the next likely candidate...

Trust me, my results surprised me as well...

For my next test, I will try mpc and aac, and start with a CD and then a tape captured at 44.1kHz...  I have a friend who is an avid ogg user who suggested that ogg may not work as well with 48kHz files... But that as a complete guess...


My long term goal is to get a halfway decent capture card (again my sound card ain't so great), and eventually move stuff to mp3.com...  So capturing sound is pretty high on my list...  ...and mp3 will probably be my end distribution format...  ...and I will wonder "What if..."

Thanks for the suggestions...
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: Dezibel on 14 July, 2002, 05:55:48 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Dibrom


The problem is that the abx test results were not very significant. 8/10 trials in only 1 test isn't really enough to be "sure" I don't think.  Secondly, one of the trials where he got 7/10 on the first try, he later was only able to get 8/15.

The results just aren't really strongly enough in favor of an actual difference being heard reliably.  One way to increase the significance would be to increase the number of trials, or to repeat the tests multiple tries.  None of that has been done though..


ufff,

forget my abx tests. forget anything i've said about mpc quality.


mpc sounds for me lifeless. andrees encoder, franks encoder, version 1.06, standard, xtreme and braindead minSMR3. everything sounds lifeless for me. i can't significantly abx what i miss. so my experiences are no reason to retune the encoder.

Dezibel

--
plain old audio cd for me please!
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: CiTay on 14 July, 2002, 06:10:47 PM
Lifeless? This is a completely psychological phenomenon, IMO.
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: JohnV on 14 July, 2002, 06:33:20 PM
Quote
Originally posted by CiTay
Lifeless? This is a completely psychological phenomenon, IMO.
And if it _sounds_ lifeless, it should be possible to ABX. In principle any difference whether "lifeless" or what ever should be ABXable.

Another blind test you can try is the "odd man out" -test or ABA. Try playing 2 originals and one encoded (decoded wav) in Winamp. Shuffle between tries and try to pick the encoded 5-6 times in a row. You can let the music flow and tracks repeat and just concentrade on music, and check when in your opinion the track sounds "lifeless".
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: Phobos on 14 July, 2002, 08:15:58 PM
omg who voted fotr wma and vqf???

there should be a sticky about:

64kb/s in no way is CD quality!!! cuz this codecs suck even more at high bitrates...

Glad to say crapiest mp3PRO still has no votes...
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: Dezibel on 14 July, 2002, 08:57:01 PM
Quote
Originally posted by CiTay
Lifeless? This is a completely psychological phenomenon, IMO.


...just for fun:

encode your favorite albums lossless [flac...] and also mpc [with your favorite switch --standard, --xtreme...]. hear 2 or 3 days nothing but these lossless albums from your harddisc using your favorite headphone and your stereo.

on 3th day after many many ours hearing these albums [lossless] start one of these albums in lossy quality. then you will know what a psychological phenomenon is and what not.

...you can acclimate everything.

Dezibel
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: fewtch on 14 July, 2002, 09:10:44 PM
Dezibel... I think you make a good point regarding the main weakness of a program like PC-ABX:  It only takes a short time factor into account.  I've always felt this was a weakness (of the usual ABX methods) too, but there's always somebody that produces various arguments knocking the theory.  Which reveals yet another maxim: Anything can be successfully argued too!  A simple debate class will teach that...
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: CiTay on 14 July, 2002, 09:40:28 PM
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 (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.
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: Phobos on 14 July, 2002, 10:32:25 PM
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...
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: CiTay on 14 July, 2002, 10:50:35 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Phobos
Is placebo effect just an effect i can get rid off or is it permanent more like a disease???


No, it's not a disease... it's an effect, as the name implies. I'll try to explain it differently: A little kid crashes with his bike and now his knee hurts. When he comes home, his mom gives him a teaspoon with medicine and promises that it will ease the pain. The little boy immediately feels better. But all his mother gave him was water with a little sugar in it. No active ingredient. It was only in his mind.

This does really happen, to adults as well. Due to the huge effect this "wishful thinking" can have on humans, it is widely used in medical treatment.
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: Dezibel on 14 July, 2002, 11:03:04 PM
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 (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
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: smok3 on 14 July, 2002, 11:52:40 PM
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)
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: Dibrom on 15 July, 2002, 12:00:54 AM
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.
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: pantheranddawg on 15 July, 2002, 12:19:03 AM
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
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: tecxx on 18 July, 2002, 12:33:15 PM
EAC for ripping, oggdrop for encoding and winamp for playing :=)
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: Mac on 05 August, 2002, 04:50:56 AM
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
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: manni on 15 November, 2002, 06:03:02 AM
EAC & oggenc.exe combination is in high use. Winamp2 for playing .oggs.
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: JLP on 23 November, 2002, 11:29:29 AM
Ogg Vorbis.
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: MadiZone on 23 November, 2002, 12:08:16 PM
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.
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: KikeG on 25 November, 2002, 03:47:49 AM
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 (http://www.kikeg.arrakis.es/winabx), it has more features than PCABX, and more will be added in the future.
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: hsc on 25 November, 2002, 12:59:43 PM
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).
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: Mr. Superbad on 27 November, 2002, 03:08:04 PM
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.
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: SK1 on 27 November, 2002, 03:26:53 PM
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.
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: bacardi_princess on 30 November, 2002, 02:26:54 AM
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!
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: Dibrom on 30 November, 2002, 02:36:13 AM
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.
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: Mr. Superbad on 30 November, 2002, 02:56:25 AM
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.
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: bacardi_princess on 30 November, 2002, 02:54:42 PM
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?
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: liekloo on 05 December, 2002, 05:01:21 AM
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).
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: liekloo on 05 December, 2002, 05:21:43 AM
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'. 
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: liekloo on 05 December, 2002, 05:23:44 AM
MPC please! 

(the superior quality...)
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: Walkman on 05 December, 2002, 04:58:08 PM
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/ (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
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: Zond on 09 December, 2002, 03:01:06 AM
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.
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: Andavari on 10 December, 2002, 10:07:24 AM
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?
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: Zond on 10 December, 2002, 05:12:11 PM
I want to settle down, but i dont know what to use, is it safe to use mpc or go back to mp3. 
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: fireballuk2001 on 10 December, 2002, 09:11:50 PM
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).
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: sony666 on 12 December, 2002, 06:36:03 PM
most files I get are lame VBR/192k mp3s normally
files I encode in high quality: mpc --standard -xlevel
low quality/samples etc: Ogg Vorbis

so all of these 3
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: Sphinx no. 4 on 30 December, 2002, 02:02:05 PM
I haven't really tried any other formats than MP3, since I think that gives me good enough abilities to create compressed files/music with good sound.

However, it would be interesting to try these other formats out someday. 
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: vapsterzz on 03 January, 2003, 07:23:40 PM
Usually Ogg Vorbis (not ogg), and FLAC for archiving.
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: Differenciam on 04 April, 2003, 04:39:36 PM
MP3, since that's all my boombox supports. For my computer, lossless, APE. For the computer, I might as well have lossless since that's what I'll be making CDs from and maybe transcoding from to another format in the future(I wouldn't want to re-rip so many damn albums), and for the player, --alt preset insane, with space to spare on a single CD. I would use Ogg Vorbis or MPC, but I do have a laptop as a computer, and I don't really care if they sound better, since on a laptop there's not going to be a difference with these speakers and nothing works with them     
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: Funkstar De Luxe on 06 April, 2003, 01:36:10 PM
.mpc all the way, mp3 just can't compare
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: rc55 on 06 April, 2003, 01:40:35 PM
The thread that will never die!

Ruairi
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: n68 on 06 April, 2003, 02:19:02 PM
yup...



the mp3`s on my system.. is mostly P2P..
or encoded for "special delivery".. (portable)

all my archived music.. is MPC
(some "demanding" music.. in AAC..)
where i feel AAC has more to offer
than MPC..


Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: Joseph on 08 April, 2003, 05:02:14 PM
Quote
.mpc all the way, mp3 just can't compare

mp3 is most widely supported by hardware players such as:

My cell phone,
cd player,
dvd player,
car,
boom box,
portable cd player,
Sony Clie,

I think it will be quite a while before mpc can compare to mp3.
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: rjamorim on 08 April, 2003, 05:39:54 PM
Quote
I think it will be quite a while before mpc can compare to mp3.

You are being too optimistc 
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: mekon21 on 08 April, 2003, 05:54:19 PM
Hi,

Currently using MP3, LAME encoder, I had been using -r3mix for my music but am now trying the --alt-preset standard switch after a recommendation on another thread, so far so good. This is still the most supported compression at the moment so what can you say !

Saying that I am now encoding music onto my laptop using Ogg Vorbis at -q4 and I like what I hear so far, just wish they would bring out support for it on my flash player. (iRiver)
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: Differenciam on 08 April, 2003, 05:57:51 PM
Quote
Quote
I think it will be quite a while before mpc can compare to mp3.

You are being too optimistc 

I agree; --alt preset insane MP3 still sounds better coming outta my new boombox, then MPC insane coming outta my laptop computer speakers. Compatibility makes a codec...
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: Trash Man on 29 May, 2003, 05:03:31 AM
MP3 --alt-preset standard %s %d in EAC
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: ~*McoreD*~ on 10 July, 2003, 11:36:38 AM
Hello!

Was shocked too see there are only 7 members (including me) who are using WMA.
Anyway I am using WMA9 VBR 98% 240kbps ~ 355kbps without copy protection.

McoreD
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: sld on 10 July, 2003, 12:16:52 PM
Don't be shocked.
The people on these forums know the good stuff when they hear it, and this poll reflects the good stuff really clearly.

Lol, mp3, vorbis and mpc form the triumvirate of the best 3 lossy audio formats!
aac is trying its best though
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: ScorLibran on 10 July, 2003, 01:39:27 PM
I use MP3 because of four reasons:

--1-- Hardware compatibility
--2-- Hardware compatibility
--3-- Hardware compatibility
--4-- Because Dibrom's a genius   

Before I discovered the world of LAME --alt-presets, my only complaint about the MP3 encoding format was some artifacting and that horribly low default low-pass setting in the FhG codec I was using.  With Dibrom's work, and that of the other people involved with LAME's development/configuration/testing, all the MP3's which I've recently encoded and tested are transparent to my ears.  Even the tough stuff.  "ABX don't lie!"

Anyway, I use --alt-preset insane (with LAME 3.90.3) ONLY because a good percentage of my taste in music encompasses techno, some of which is notoriously hard to encode.  Plus, I enjoy the feeling of "insurance" I get knowing that all of my music is of the highest quality MP3 currently has to offer.  I can accept that some bits are wasted, and I'll do with ~25% less music on my hard drive as long as the music I do have encoded is as close to perfect as possible (for MP3).

Right now I'm using LAME -h for my portable devices (which don't like ABR or VBR), but I'm still trying other formats for them.  Maybe I'll end up using --alt-preset cbr 128, or --alt-preset cbr 128 --lowpass 16, or something like that.

Everything I have done so far has been ripped securely with EAC 0.95prebeta3 for a perfect baseline and gained with MP3Gain 1.4.1/1.2.0 for lossless volume leveling (album mode).  My MP3 encoding front end is most often EAC, and occasionally RazorLame 1.1.5 or dBpowerAmp Music Converter r10beta7.

(Once dMC r10 is out of beta, I'm hoping to use it for even more of my MP3-related tasks.  It's a great product.)

Overall, gotta say I'm thrilled with the results!

---------------------------

P.S...I notice that most people in the poll so far are using MPC.  Not surprising..I've tried it for a few files for comparison...outstanding quality (to my ears, anyway) for medium bitrates.  I'm curious to see what the future holds for hardware compatibility...
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: irchs on 10 July, 2003, 02:04:41 PM
ogg for me.  Always at 320kbps for album rips, and 128kbps for streaming stuff.  Nothing sounds better, using garf's gt3b1 binaries too
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: guruboolez on 10 July, 2003, 03:08:25 PM
Quote
Hello!

Was shocked too see there are only 7 members (including me) who are using WMA.
Anyway I am using WMA9 VBR 98% 240kbps ~ 355kbps without copy protection.

McoreD

This topic is really old : twelve monthes. One year ago, wma was limited to 192 kbps, and in CBR only. Quality wasn't acceptable, especially when compared to --alt-preset standard.
WMA9 is more interesting now : quality improving, VBR, ABR (2 pass), PRO mode, bitrate > 192 kbps.
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: Geezer on 10 July, 2003, 06:27:12 PM
Quote
Mp3.
It's just enough good for my ears:)
And it's fully supported by every audio software.

Hey Pri3st, I like you avatar!

I'm to using MP3 still, but feel that I might switch format soon. And it will probably be to AAC.
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: QuantumKnot on 10 July, 2003, 09:00:47 PM
I use Ogg Vorbis GT3b1 at -q5 to rip my albums.
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: prankstare on 13 July, 2003, 06:37:27 AM
That's so hard to say.....Why do I use MPC more than the others? B)
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: DuskHorizon on 19 July, 2003, 05:55:52 PM
At first I ripped at alt preset standard, then I stepped up to extreme and then I went on to insane.

I did a recent rip into MPC Insane and compared it to my MP3 insane rip, the MPC files sound better to me, they seem to carry more precision and enable you to hear the individual instruments clearer (especially drums).

Oh and ofcourse the MPC Insane file size is quite a bit smaller than the MP3 Insane file size :].
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: music_man_mpc on 24 July, 2003, 08:27:42 PM
I'm so glad to see that after 824 votes no one is using Real Media.
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: Jebus on 24 July, 2003, 08:57:34 PM
Quote
At first I ripped at alt preset standard, then I stepped up to extreme and then I went on to insane.

I did a recent rip into MPC Insane and compared it to my MP3 insane rip, the MPC files sound better to me, they seem to carry more precision and enable you to hear the individual instruments clearer (especially drums).

Oh and ofcourse the MPC Insane file size is quite a bit smaller than the MP3 Insane file size :].

Dude, i'm getting sick of telling people to read the forum rules. Don't spew that stuff unless you are going to back it up with ABX results. If you can honestly tell the difference between MPC insane and MP3 insane, then we need to take your ears for auditory research.
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: Oge_user on 25 July, 2003, 01:07:53 PM
I'm using MP3 at the moment, but I'm switching to MPC @ standard
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: Raffles on 25 July, 2003, 08:58:58 PM
I was ripping all my cd's to mpc xtreme until I got an mp3 player, now I've gone back to using mp3 (lame --alt-preset standard).

Transparency is transparency whichever format you're using, and I've never been able to hear any difference between mpc xtreme (or standard for that matter) and lame --alt-preset standard.

I decided to use mpc because the general consensus is that mpc is the best option for high bitrates, and we all want what we think is the best, even if our ears can't differentiate, but now that portability is a factor, mp3 has the edge again.
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: mdmuir on 25 July, 2003, 09:21:42 PM
I have 60 gigs of personal cds archived as .ape files, compressed at the high compression setting. I then use the excellent dbpoweramp audio converter to encode the .ape files to any lossy format I may need at the moment, usually aps mp3 for making mp3 cds for my portable. This way for me, the whole quality issue is moot.
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: sld on 02 August, 2003, 12:33:23 AM
Quote
At first I ripped at alt preset standard, then I stepped up to extreme and then I went on to insane.

I did a recent rip into MPC Insane and compared it to my MP3 insane rip, the MPC files sound better to me, they seem to carry more precision and enable you to hear the individual instruments clearer (especially drums).

Oh and ofcourse the MPC Insane file size is quite a bit smaller than the MP3 Insane file size :].

Wow. Placebo was never so tangible.
You gotta tell me how you make yourself believe what you can't hear.
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: Tuning on 05 November, 2003, 04:32:12 AM
LC-AAC/HE-AAC  is my most preffered lossy compression.
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: Jerethi on 12 January, 2004, 07:42:05 PM
I went ahead and threw in a vote for AAC.

I've actually been agonizing for the past few days over whether I want to stick with AAC or switch over to MPC.  I finally ABX'd two samples and determined that AAC is transparent for me at lower bitrates than MPC, so I can get bigger bang for my buck with AAC. 

I'm fairly new to all of this, so chances are I will continue to agonize for at least a week before settling on a final decision.
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: shday on 12 January, 2004, 11:57:37 PM
Quote
I've actually been agonizing for the past few days over whether I want to stick with AAC or switch over to MPC.  I finally ABX'd two samples and determined that AAC is transparent for me at lower bitrates than MPC, so I can get bigger bang for my buck with AAC.

Remember that MPC was not designed to be good at low bitrates (<128kbs). It has something to do with it being a subband codec. Try doing a search to learn more. AFAIK this type of codec is theoretically (and practically) better at high bitrates... hence its popularity around here.

You could save yourself some agonizing and first make an archive with a lossless format. Then you can transcode to a lossy format fairly easily (compared to ripping) with no quality loss. If you feel you made the wrong choice (about the lossy format) no big deal, just transcode.  Of course you’ll need lots of space… got a DVD burner?
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: The_Cisco_Kid on 13 January, 2004, 01:39:58 AM
trying out Wavpack hybrid mode for archiving currently. For my website I am leaning toward MPC -q5 or Ogg-Vorbis; not even going to touch MP3 anymore.
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: Linkin on 13 January, 2004, 09:52:14 AM
I recently switched from mpc to aac

reasons:
- hardware compatibility
- can't hear difference
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: psyraver on 31 January, 2004, 04:30:12 AM
At first when I got into sound and compression formats, I liked mp3Pro(OMG!).  But now I am ogg all the way, I love how at low bit rates it sounds great and plus its open source.
And iRiver is supporting it(got my first mp3 player from them).
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: Raederle on 18 April, 2004, 02:07:48 PM
MP3 --alt-preset for now.  But all the albums have been flac'd with cuesheets so if I change my mind later the source is there.  Given I started this to get my cassette collection onto cds/computer I really dont need more quality atm.

Raederle

Back to lurking
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: KA_CH_RO on 07 June, 2004, 11:15:23 PM
Hey...
I've seen the clear champion was mpc here

How do you put those files on your portables?
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: rjamorim on 07 June, 2004, 11:27:41 PM
This poll is nearly 2 years old. Several voters changed their choice in codecs since.And there's no way for forum members to update their votes. So, I would recommend you don't take it too seriously.

And no, MPC has no portable support, unless you consider some quasi-mythical chinese player that nobody ever saw working with MPC
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: Dibrom on 07 June, 2004, 11:32:43 PM
Quote
And no, MPC has no portable support, unless you consider some quasi-mythical chinese player that nobody ever saw working with MPC

But technically, if it works, it still has portable support

It'd be better to say that it has no practical portable support for the majority of people.
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: rjamorim on 07 June, 2004, 11:34:53 PM
Quote
But technically, if it works, it still has portable support

Well, problem is, nobody ever tested it. We only have the developer's word.

Also, it's worth wondering if it supports some of MPC's best features like gapless playback, APE tags, replaygain...
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: Dibrom on 07 June, 2004, 11:43:11 PM
Quote
Quote
But technically, if it works, it still has portable support

Well, problem is, nobody ever tested it. We only have the developer's word.

Also, it's worth wondering if it supports some of MPC's best features like gapless playback, APE tags, replaygain...

Right.  But since we don't know, we can't say that it does and can't say that it doesn't, for sure

Just a little nitpick..

As for the second matter though, it's pretty much par for the course that portable players don't support the entire feature set of a given format.  One of the downsides to portables compared to the type of software players that are available really...
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: xmixahlx on 08 June, 2004, 02:48:03 AM
hey, i just made a portable out of pudding that plays back musepack - but you can't see it.

does that count?

...seriously, tho - i think someone needs to verify this (does someone have access to the portable other than the developer?) --> otherwise it seems to me to qualify as vaporware


later
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: FireStarter on 08 June, 2004, 07:23:16 AM
Myself are using MPC for compressing lossy, for me the desission is made
from the decoded resoult, and there the mpc format sounds and looks better
than mp3. (high bitrate) (i don`t own a portable.)
Not that am burn from lossy, but it shows how the encoder treats the input.
I think the only reason mp3 is leading this poll, is for portable usage,
but never the less, ogg should have more votes.
Beside, i think a valid additional question is: "For what purpose do you compress music."
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: damaki on 08 June, 2004, 07:42:17 AM
I mainly use OptimFrog Dualstream, because I need to transcode to low quality mp3 for portable use but I can't afford lossless cause it's too big. Many of my old rips that I don't really have time to rerip that are mp3 APS or for the oldest ones wma 7/8 @ 128 kbps. About wma, I can't figure out how I could think that it was transparent. Placebo is really magic.
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: WarBird on 08 June, 2004, 08:07:38 AM
Flac/ape lossless, transcoded to ogg vorbis (aotuv b2 q4.25) or mp3 lame aps for portable use
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: krmathis on 08 June, 2004, 09:23:18 AM
I voted Lossless, even though I use AAC pretty much.
But Apple Lossless is my favorite at the moment, because it has software and hardware support that I need! 
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: Jack Comics on 08 June, 2004, 12:55:35 PM
Quote
This poll is nearly 2 years old. Several voters changed their choice in codecs since.And there's no way for forum members to update their votes. So, I would recommend you don't take it too seriously.

Perhaps it is time for a new poll then?  "Lossy Codec Poll Reloaded"
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: PlazzTT on 08 June, 2004, 01:20:07 PM
Time for a new poll alright I think.

MP3 (LAME preset extreme) is definately my codec of choice now.
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: mp4junkie on 08 June, 2004, 01:52:33 PM
I remember an early version of the MPEG4 General Audio Input plugin for winamp that had a TON of tags, I wish I still had it. The latest ones only have the generic tags. It's not like I share my music with anyone, anyway.
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: The_Cisco_Kid on 09 June, 2004, 02:04:37 AM
I have settled on AAC with the Compaact! encoder for my audio webstuff and 'lossy' does not exist in my vocabulary for anything not web related that I personally encode.
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: plonk420 on 09 June, 2004, 02:40:09 AM
Quote
Only on this forum will you see MPC the most used format, most people here are a bit obsessed with perfect quality I think.

doesn't look that way at present. i didnt' think MPC was that close a second
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: DreamTactix291 on 09 June, 2004, 03:08:50 AM
MPC --xtreme has been my format of choice lately, but I used to use (and sometimes still do use) Vorbis GT3b2 -q6.  Recently started playing around with Ahead's AAC at the extreme preset.  I listen to some fairly difficult music to encode and really they all sounded fine, but I just like perfect quality, well at least to my ears.
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: FireStarter on 09 June, 2004, 05:00:54 AM
For what it is worth, i belive the MPC format is still way to "unknown" to the masses. Sure you got mpc support in the most used soft. players, but from a user point of view, the mp3 format will still be the favourite as hardware suport goes.
MPC is in my mind the best a lossy compression can do, regarding quality,
but as long the format can`t provide wildly covered portable support, people
will still use mp3.
Regarding mp4, it would have been interesting to see a test report on high bitrates.
ATM. mp4 (especially nero) audio seems to have a brighter future as hardware suport, i know nothing about what goes on in the mpc camp. but i pray to god
that this format doesn`t "die".
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: neilwilkes on 09 June, 2004, 01:54:49 PM
Why is there no mention of either Dolby Digital or DTS?
Both these can be used on DVD, with DD 2/0 you will get 60 albums onto a single DVD-R.
It is definitelt lossy compression, and deserves to be included.
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: neilwilkes on 09 June, 2004, 01:55:39 PM
Forgot to mention also that DD as well as DTS will go on CD as well as DVD
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: jason_taverner on 09 June, 2004, 05:46:29 PM
At the moment i rip all my cds to FLAC. Then I transcode the FLAC to LAME .90.3 APE.

The FLACs go onto DVD, the MP3s stay on my hd. No doubt if I had a desktop I'd have bought a few 320 gb disks to keep the lossless on disk. Good thing I can't. 

Yes I could use mpc but: my crappy sony mp3 discman (yeah yeah I know impulse buy at the airport what do you wanna do?) only does wma (urk!) and atrac3 (cue sounds of slughter), so I'm stuck with mp3 if I wanna hear them on the move... not that LAME is bad. Far from it. I just finished verbally berating a friend of mine who's a buddying techno artist and was encoding his tunes @ 128 with Fhg. Now he's doing it at APE... but mp3 has it's limitations.

As soon as I see a good hard-disk player that does mpc and mpc goes to sv 7.5 I'll switch tho... there's really no comparison between the 2 at the omg-i-know-standard-is-transparent-but-i-wanna-make-sure-even-if-its-a-waste-of-data-quality-freak levels I'm at 
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: Matyas on 10 June, 2004, 02:40:36 AM
Heh maybe people at realmedia should take a look at the poll :-)
RM
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: The_Cisco_Kid on 10 June, 2004, 03:12:03 AM
Quote
Heh maybe people at realmedia should take a look at the poll :-)
RM

that was beaten by VQF even waaay back when this poll was young.
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: wortels on 09 July, 2004, 02:10:11 PM
I think this thread should be locked and this poll should be re-started as it is almost 2 years old. Please can a mod lock this and can someone start a similar poll I can bet that the change in the results would be huge!
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: Celsus on 11 July, 2004, 03:20:46 PM
Quote
I think this thread should be locked and this poll should be re-started as it is almost 2 years old. Please can a mod lock this and can someone start a similar poll I can bet that the change in the results would be huge!
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=224450"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Agree... and add some new formats in new poll...
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: JEN on 11 July, 2004, 04:04:48 PM
I still use mp3 for portable use, I only use lossless for backups and home use.  However, I think mp4 is the best
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: DeepDose on 27 July, 2004, 12:49:44 PM
I've just started to use MPC....i'm really impressed......sounds very to the orginal....
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: rockdave on 29 July, 2004, 06:19:58 PM
Honestly, been used to use IMA-encoded AIFCs on an old Mac.  I thought I was going to sing and dance when my parents got me an old 400 mHz G3 iMac 2 years ago (thanks a lot...) with something BETTER than the 1 GB hard disk I was used to.  Now its 50% AAC, 45% OGG, and some Apple Lossless and Mp3.
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: Audionut on 31 July, 2004, 07:13:42 AM
aacenc -ultra -profile 2 -nh
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: Garf on 31 July, 2004, 07:16:29 AM
It would be interesting to start a "version 2" of this poll and see if habits have changed over the past 2 years.
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: evereux on 31 July, 2004, 07:19:43 AM
Quote
It would be interesting to start a "version 2" of this poll and see if habits have changed over the past 2 years.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=230538"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


It would, go for it.
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: ®om on 31 July, 2004, 07:30:16 AM
I vote LOSSLESS (even if it's contradictory with the question (which lossy format -> lossless)) lol...

Else, I use MPC for lossy
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: Insolent on 02 August, 2004, 08:29:39 AM
I make lossless FLAC backups and then transcode to 192-320 VBR LAME MP3 (I have space to burn).
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: audioflex on 02 August, 2004, 01:02:06 PM
my most listened to CD's go in monkeys audio, which i transcode to lame --aps or --apx for my ipod, other than that, it's mostly --aps
Title: Which lossy format are you using?
Post by: Peter on 02 August, 2004, 04:39:06 PM
New poll here (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=24678).