Skip to main content

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: "Best" encoding for a portable setup? (Read 8576 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

"Best" encoding for a portable setup?

Reply #25
It's not really them, it's all of the annoying Itunes users who have Vorbis files and they want to play them on their IPod or the ones who complain about Apple DRM with AAC, etc.  It's like being stuck between a Rock and a hard place. Anything but "fledgling" actually, 12% of the internet is a pretty descent number.    It's purely technical for me, nevermind the listening tests  . Above a -q 5 I really can't the difference and I mostly play stuff on my computer here.  I am college student what can I say?

Comparatively speaking, 12% is rather small compared to their penetration rate and userbase.

I love Vorbis as much as you and use it as much as possible, including on my Rockbox'd Ipod (Vorbis is also not the ONLY reason to use Rockbox, btw, Brent...gapless playback is another biggie for some around here), on my former Iaudio I5, on my PC when the situation calls for it and on my JVC head unit.

"Best" encoding for a portable setup?

Reply #26
Quote
Comparatively speaking, 12% is rather small compared to their penetration rate and userbase.

I love Vorbis as much as you and use it as much as possible, including on my Rockbox'd Ipod (Vorbis is also not the ONLY reason to use Rockbox, btw, Brent...gapless playback is another biggie for some around here), on my former Iaudio I5, on my PC when the situation calls for it and on my JVC head unit


I think 12% is a good number for open-source project. I thought it was a smart idea four years ago when I first heard about it.  Rockbox has some other nifty features that you won't find in most portable players firmware.
budding I.T professional

"Best" encoding for a portable setup?

Reply #27

There's an AAC encoder available from Nero at no cost that tests out as equal or better than Apple's encoder, depending on bit rate and which test results you read. In the sweet spot around 125kpbs the latest tests I could find indicate that the Apple and Nero AAC and LAME mp3 encoders all work more or less equally well.

Nero's AAC encoder was exclude from the result (see here). There's nothing to conclude from a buggy encoder which artificially boosted the bitrate on the beginning of each sample. The current encoder reacts differently and must be tested first to see how it performs compared to is direct competitors [in my opinion, Nero LC-AAC is very good, but I haven't performed any direct comparison with iTunes' one to see which one is preferable quality-wise]. There's to my knowledge there's no public or private listening test -available for reading- telling us that recent Nero's AAC encoder performs "equal or better than Apple's encoder". Do you have some precise information about this superiority?


My "equal or better" comment was based on an incorrect recall of the older CBR test results. I just went back and re-read that report and in fact it was the Apple codec that was equal to or better than the Nero one in the CBR tests. Thank you for prompting me to doublecheck my memory. For my part, I think they did the right thing on the later test by reporting the means for Nero but not including it in their " conclusions. However, uneven bitrates or no the Nero encoder seems to produce files of similar quality to the other good codecs.

Therefore I still stand by my assertion that at bitrates well over 100kbps you can choose between iTunes, Nero or LAME for reasons of convenience or compatability without worrying that you are giving up encoding quality.

(Vorbis is also not the ONLY reason to use Rockbox, btw, Brent...gapless playback is another biggie for some around here)


My point was that switching to Rockbox instead of your player's factory firmware would be a awfully big step for a newcomer if it were only to be able to start out with Ogg Vorbis instead of AAC. Like the EQ thing, gapless is one of those features that people seem to find worth going out of their way to get.

 

"Best" encoding for a portable setup?

Reply #28
Quote
My point was that switching to Rockbox instead of your player's factory firmware would be a awfully big step for a newcomer if it were only to be able to start out with Ogg Vorbis instead of AAC. Like the EQ thing, gapless is one of those features that people seem to find worth going out of their way to get.


Yes, it is a very large step. It takes some time and energy, but for those who want very specific features it's worth it. 
budding I.T professional

"Best" encoding for a portable setup?

Reply #29
Therefore I still stand by my assertion that at bitrates well over 100kbps you can choose between iTunes, Nero or LAME for reasons of convenience or compatability without worrying that you are giving up encoding quality.

It's not necessary true. People with better skill or training than average may encounter audible difference among different HQ encoders. In fact I did (last year). Other exemple: Pio2001 (IIRC) was annoyed by LAME -V5 encodings during latest multiformat listening test but much less by AAC, WMAPRo & Vorbis tools.
I also think that 100 kbps is maybe not enough for MP3 to compete with more advanced encoders. Below 115...125 kbps the quality seriously drops to my ears whereas Vorbis or Nero AAC don't really suffer from the bitrate reduction. I'd like to see a collective ~100 kbps multiformat listening test just to see if other people would experience the same

But your advice is true. When quality of different encoders is almost transparent at a given bitrate there are other aspect like compatibility, speed, CLI encoders or not , etc... to take into account.

"Best" encoding for a portable setup?

Reply #30
I ought to be careful making recommendations to other people anyway. Listening to my favorite kinds of music on a stock iPod or straight from the computer sounds so darned good at ridiculously low bitrates that it all seems impossible to me anyhow.

Somehow my intuition says it ought to take at least several hundred thousand bits per second to reproduce the music from a CD, yet some of my favorite tracks are indistinguishable from "perfect" with Nero -q .40 producing as little as 91kpbs. Go figure.

 
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2021