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

What lossy format(s)/bitrate(s) do you use on a regular basis?

MP3 - 112 kbps and less (CBR/ABR/VBR V6 - V9)
MP3 - 128 kbps  (CBR/ABR/VBR V5)
MP3 - 160 kbps  (CBR/ABR/VBR V4)
MP3 - 175 kbps  (CBR/ABR/VBR V3)
MP3 - 192 kbps  (CBR/ABR/VBR V2)
MP3 - 224 kbps  (CBR/ABR/VBR V1)
MP3 - 256 kbps  (CBR/ABR/VBR V0)
MP3 - 320 kbps CBR
AAC or HE-AAC - 32 kbps and less
AAC or HE-AAC - 48 kbps
AAC or HE-AAC - 64 kbps
AAC or HE-AAC - 80 kbps
AAC or HE-AAC - 96 kbps
AAC or HE-AAC - 112 kbps
AAC or HE-AAC - 128 kbps
AAC or HE-AAC - 160 kbps
AAC or HE-AAC - 175 kbps
AAC or HE-AAC - 192 kbps
AAC or HE-AAC - 224 kbps
AAC or HE-AAC - 256 kbps
AAC or HE-AAC - 320 kbps
AAC or HE-AAC - More than 320 kbps
Opus - 32 kbps and less
Opus - 48 kbps
Opus - 64 kbps
Opus - 80 kbps
Opus - 96 kbps
Opus - 112 kbps
Opus - 128 kbps
Opus - 160 kbps
Opus - 175 kbps
Opus - 192 kbps
Opus - 224 kbps
Opus - 256 kbps
Opus - 320 kbps
Opus - More than 320 kbps
Ogg Vorbis - 32 kbps and less
Ogg Vorbis - 48 kbps
Ogg Vorbis - 64 kbps
Ogg Vorbis - 80 kbps
Ogg Vorbis - 96 kbps
Ogg Vorbis - 112 kbps
Ogg Vorbis - 128 kbps
Ogg Vorbis - 160 kbps
Ogg Vorbis - 175 kbps
Ogg Vorbis - 192 kbps
Ogg Vorbis - 224 kbps
Ogg Vorbis - 256 kbps
Ogg Vorbis - 320 kbps
Ogg Vorbis - More than 320 kbps
Musepack MPC - 32 kbps and less
Musepack MPC - 48 kbps
Musepack MPC - 64 kbps
Musepack MPC - 80 kbps
Musepack MPC - 96 kbps
Musepack MPC - 112 kbps
Musepack MPC - 128 kbps
Musepack MPC - 160 kbps
Musepack MPC - 175 kbps
Musepack MPC - 192 kbps
Musepack MPC - 224 kbps
Musepack MPC - 256 kbps
Musepack MPC - 320 kbps
Musepack MPC - More than 320 kbps
xHE-AAC - 32 kbps and less
xHE-AAC - 48 kbps
xHE-AAC - 64 kbps
xHE-AAC - 80 kbps
xHE-AAC - 96 kbps
xHE-AAC - 112 kbps
xHE-AAC - 128 kbps
xHE-AAC - 160 kbps
xHE-AAC - 175 kbps
xHE-AAC - 192 kbps
xHE-AAC - 224 kbps
xHE-AAC - 256 kbps
xHE-AAC - 320 kbps
xHE-AAC - More than 320 kbps
WavPack Lossy/Hybrid (.wv) - 100 kbps or less
WavPack Lossy/Hybrid (.wv) - 200 kbps
WavPack Lossy/Hybrid (.wv) - 300 kbps
WavPack Lossy/Hybrid (.wv) - 400 kbps
WavPack Lossy/Hybrid (.wv) - 500 kbps
WavPack Lossy/Hybrid (.wv) - 600 kbps
WavPack Lossy/Hybrid (.wv) - 700 kbps and more
LossyWAV - 100 kbps or less
LossyWAV - 200 kbps
LossyWAV - 300 kbps
LossyWAV - 400 kbps
LossyWAV - 500 kbps
LossyWAV - 600 kbps
LossyWAV - 700 kbps and more

Voting closes: 2026-01-01 02:20:07

Topic: 2024/2025 Bitrate/Format Poll (Lossy) (Read 66660 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: 2024/2025 Bitrate/Format Poll (Lossy)

Reply #50 –
Quote from: btc on
It's not a weak point. It's how CBR and VBR work.
On average CBR uses more of bit reservoir, but the peaks/big values are bigger for VBR. It's a nature of VBR/CBR. Nothing to do with LAME encoder.

It is easy to explain when bitrate isn't the maximum. But the big values cannot be bigger than the maximum possible, so when the encoder's model suggests that the bitrate should hit the maximum, then what? Then it should max out reservoir use in both modes, shouldn't it?

Re: 2024/2025 Bitrate/Format Poll (Lossy)

Reply #51 –
Fair quesiton. And I don't have answer to it.

Re: 2024/2025 Bitrate/Format Poll (Lossy)

Reply #52 –
Quote from: guruboolez on
You originally claimed that MP3 achieves full transparency at 320 kbps and then suggested that LAME had not yet matured enough to meet this hypothetical level of quality at this bitrate.

I can't see how a listening test at 16 kbps can backup any of your previous claim.

With all due respect, I must decline to engage in further debate on this matter.


Thanks. I should have said this out loud as well. For those of us from 2001 and 2002, we have been through a lot of these what should have long been settled debate thousands times already. 

Re: 2024/2025 Bitrate/Format Poll (Lossy)

Reply #53 –
For music, MP3/V0/VBR, LAME. Nearly impossible to discern from lossless (compatibility across all devices).
For video editing I think AAC is the current standard (requirement, mostly).
However, I wished we had the FOSS as the standards.

Re: 2024/2025 Bitrate/Format Poll (Lossy)

Reply #54 –
For music, either Opus 160 or qaac -V109. Although I mainly use Opus (on my Android phones) I still keep both on my laptop, just in case. On laptop I just listen to the FLACs.

Re: 2024/2025 Bitrate/Format Poll (Lossy)

Reply #55 –
Thank you all for votes.  :)

Poll showed that era of low/medium bitrates is over (LAME -V5 etc..).

Re: 2024/2025 Bitrate/Format Poll (Lossy)

Reply #56 –
My votes:

1. MP3 - 256 kbps  (CBR/ABR/VBR V0) - for non-commercial music that I share, it's LAME V0 when derived from a lossless source.
2. AAC or HE-AAC - 160 kbps - Apple VBR Q 82 is used for my personal listening on my phone when derived from lossless sources.
3. AAC or HE-AAC - 320 kbps - BBC transmits in 320kbps, so this is "used"/listened to.

Re: 2024/2025 Bitrate/Format Poll (Lossy)

Reply #57 –
My votes -:

1.) LAME MP3 at V0/320kbps, When It the only option or I'm sharing lossless/CD's.

2.) Vorbis at Q5(160kbps VBR), My personal use on a Phone I use.






OptimFrog PC | QAAC at Q109(Phone)

Re: 2024/2025 Bitrate/Format Poll (Lossy)

Reply #58 –
This year, I completely overhauled my format and approach. I don't have separate lossy encodings of my main lossless library anymore. I switched to a hybrid format using Wavpack, which eliminates the need to manage two separate libraries (lossless and lossy). This change has resulted in a significant storage gain. Additionally, any modifications to metadata, folder names, or album art are automatically updated on the lossy side: that's a huge comfort that really convinced me!
For the first time, I have lossy encodings ranging from 370 kbps (CD) to 800 kbps (96 KHz). No need to say that quality is fully transparent at this bitrate (which can also be significantly reduced). However, this does reduce the overall amount of music I can store on a mobile device. Wavpack works perfectly (gapless, correct bitrate report, metadata…) on Android devices.

So far, I am very pleased with this decision.
Wavpack Hybrid -c4hx6

Re: 2024/2025 Bitrate/Format Poll (Lossy)

Reply #59 –
Quote from: guruboolez on
This year, I completely overhauled my format and approach.
Decided for pure flac, with some sporadical bit depth reduction to 20/21. Most music is still redbook, but slowly it will move towards 24/48. 96k upper bound for really important music. My stats, this is 2 TB of audio, 40 weeks. 1/4 Pop (Electronic, IDM), 3/4 Classical, mostly orchestral.
X
Oh yes, I also have a lossy copy (lc aac at ca. q100), which is, idk, ca. 500 gigs.

In my fb2k I have buttons (w. foo_run) which open TotalCommander for same folder/backup folder/aac folder, this makes handling things much easier.

Re: 2024/2025 Bitrate/Format Poll (Lossy)

Reply #60 –
Poll will be opened for one more year.

Re: 2024/2025 Bitrate/Format Poll (Lossy)

Reply #61 –
Quote from: guruboolez on
This year, I completely overhauled my format and approach. I don't have separate lossy encodings of my main lossless library anymore. I switched to a hybrid format using Wavpack, which eliminates the need to manage two separate libraries (lossless and lossy). This change has resulted in a significant storage gain. Additionally, any modifications to metadata, folder names, or album art are automatically updated on the lossy side: that's a huge comfort that really convinced me!
For the first time, I have lossy encodings ranging from 370 kbps (CD) to 800 kbps (96 KHz). No need to say that quality is fully transparent at this bitrate (which can also be significantly reduced). However, this does reduce the overall amount of music I can store on a mobile device. Wavpack works perfectly (gapless, correct bitrate report, metadata…) on Android devices.

So far, I am very pleased with this decision.

Hey, @guruboolez , I’m very happy that this solution is working out for you!

And thanks for discovering and reporting the noise issue you were having with very low bitrates. I have incorporated all the improvements I made for that custom version, along with some speed optimizations, into the latest 5.8.0 release.

Re: 2024/2025 Bitrate/Format Poll (Lossy)

Reply #62 –
many of the given formats do not target a specific bitrate, and it's also unclear how this poll is supposed to help.
a fan of AutoEq + Meier Crossfeed

Re: 2024/2025 Bitrate/Format Poll (Lossy)

Reply #63 –
ok

Re: 2024/2025 Bitrate/Format Poll (Lossy)

Reply #64 –
Weirdly, nothing has really changed in my setup in about 10 years:
  • I (perhaps foolishly) continue to access my mobile collection mostly through iOS Music, even though my desktop workflow remains wholly outside the Apple ecosystem. That more or less mandates transcoding everything to AAC and bouncing off iTunes.
  • For vinyl rips, I convert everything to LossyWAV in the final step.

Re: 2024/2025 Bitrate/Format Poll (Lossy)

Reply #65 –
losstWAV is a really good option.
 

Re: 2024/2025 Bitrate/Format Poll (Lossy)

Reply #66 –
Quite seriously, if you are listening your music via bluetooth earbuds (like me) which mostly don't  support high bitrate formats like LDAC or aptx (and even if they do, it is still questionable as they are also lossy compression methods which introduce "re-encoding"), you will be deceiving yourself that you are listening to lossless when you are listening to FLAC. Or even high bitrate lossy files are just a waste in that very case. Put a cable in that thing and "maybe" then you are getting the real deal (if you can hear it of course).

With my SBC supporting bluetooth earbuds (they also claim to do AAC but it sucks), i can not discern a 60kbps opus file from the original flac that it was encoded from. I don't really have a good cable setup to compare that with, but the bluetooth serves me fine enough, i don't really hear any artefacts in let's say the cymbals/open hi-hats in the music that i am listening to, which are usually the most affected part as i am sure you all know. That was the first thing that we looked for when we were dealing with mp3s back in the day.

So i guess technology really came a long way since the time of mp3. The compression ratio giving the same amount of quality is a lot higher today, and this goes for both the bluetooth codecs and the compression codecs that we use to compress our CDs and FLACs let's say. I am starting to believe that most of us don't even need "lossless" other than for archival purposes to prevent generation loss.