HydrogenAudio

Hydrogenaudio Forum => General Audio => Topic started by: ancl on 2001-09-29 17:54:44

Title: Which codec do you use?
Post by: ancl on 2001-09-29 17:54:44
Hello everybody!

Since we now have a board for all(?) important audio codecs, it would be interesting to know which one (or two) you people use, and for what purpose.

Me myself is using nothing but mpc (-xtreme -scale .90) for the moment. In the old days, I simply used AudioCatalyst (yes I know, Xing, but I didn't know better  ), in vbr mode.

The reason for using mpc now is that it gives me superb quality all the time, without the need of testing different switches, and this with reasonable file sizes.

I don't have any portable player at the moment, but if I eventually got one I believe I can reencode my mpc's to mp3 or wma or ogg or whatever is supported without any big disadvantages. (Correct me if I'm wrong, but reencode from mpc is not as bad as from mp3, right?)

So, which codec are you using, and why?
Please, come on everybody and lets here your opinion.

/Andreas
Title: Which codec do you use?
Post by: CiTay on 2001-09-29 18:21:31
I mostly use MP3, for compatibility reasons. Although i could convince the majority of my friends of LAME's advantages over other encoders (some used Xing/FhG 128 CBR, some Xing VBR), there are no doubts for them to stay at MP3... for instance, one guy spent a lot of money for a Nomad Jukebox, and obviously he wants to use a format that can be played by it

So i'm happily exchanging some LAME MP3s here and there, and with this modified --dm-preset insane setting i'm using, it doesn't sound too bad really. I'm aware of the superior MPC quality, but oh well...  /me is quite pleased with LAME MP3.
Title: Which codec do you use?
Post by: Artemis3 on 2001-09-29 21:11:40
Hi; i'm mostly using Lame here; not much command line fiddling; just --dm-preset standard  Ok, since i have a little stream at live365, im also using -b32 -a -h --resample 22.05 --lowpass 11 --nspsytune --athtype 2 --noshort for the streaming. Please tell me when the next free ogg enabled relay service appears. (Make sure it supports push streaming or give us some server space for us NAT impaired users (damn IPV4!)).

I'll really play with Vorbis after version 1 release is made.

I have hopes for both AAC and MPC; let's see if they will they gain momentum and popularity; still i'll be probably pushing vorbis
Title: Which codec do you use?
Post by: Uosdwis R. Dewoh on 2001-09-29 21:39:32
Ahoy.

I'm a mpc man too. The majority of my rips are encoded using -standard -nmt 9 -ltq fil, which has yielded excellent results so far. More important or critical music will be given special treatment in the future. With HDCD's I burn directly to CD-R or compress losslessly using Monkey's Audio. That way I can burn any song to a CD-RW for playback on my HDCD-equipped CD player when I so desire. Btw, those mpc tweaks are something I picked up from one of Dibrom's posts on the r3mix forums.

Cheers,

Uosdwis
Title: Which codec do you use?
Post by: Pio2001 on 2001-09-29 22:03:19
Just for the statistics, I usually don't compress music, I directly copy to audio CDs.

Sometimes I have several tracks that are not worth burning, so I use MP3. I'm currently using dm xtreme.

For DivX movies, I'm using mp3. The setting depends on the movie. I like DM Xtreme, that I still have to ABX on "non killer samples". I encoded yesterday a bad mono soundtrack with r3mix -b56 (don't know if it was a good idea, but it worked). I'm considering using the raw AC3 stream for 2 channel sound for the next works.
Title: Which codec do you use?
Post by: ChristianHJW on 2001-09-29 22:42:07
Lame VBR or ABR ( still learning ) , but only for the soundtracks of my DivX movies, i dont compress music.

I decode the AC3 ( 2 ch 192 kbps or 5.1 384 or 448 kbps ) with HeadAC3 from TheRealDarkAvenger ( uses azid.dll , incl. 2 pass normalizing ) into a 24 Bits WAV , make sample rate conversion with SSRC ( still 24 bits both WAVs ) and then feed it into Lame.

Bitrates are in most cases under 140 kbps, means V4 or V5 for VBR or ABR for lower bitrates.
Title: Which codec do you use?
Post by: Garf on 2001-09-29 23:07:47
Let me add to the statistics (statistics? aargh )

I currently use both MP3 (forcedly, it's an older collection that someone else ripped for me, all Xing@128), Vorbis with my own mode, MPC and Monkey's Audio.

My main gripe with the latter is that I can't play the files when programming on the Linux system. Fortunately, it has a well-working conversion option. If I am getting ready for a long hacking session I convert a few CD's to mpc -standard and copy them over.

The good CD's all go to Monkey's Audio. The lesser ones get Ogged with my own mode. When the Ogg encoder gets a bit more stable I'll likely make it all high-bitrate Oggs.

For DivX movies, I use mp3@112kbps. I find the sound quality a bit less important when watching a movie, and I'm not sure the Linux DivX player I use (aviplay) actually supports anything besides mp3.

--
GCP
Title: Which codec do you use?
Post by: krsna77 on 2001-09-30 00:12:26
For quite a while, I used --r3mix --scale .98 diligently, and I still like it.

That having been said, though I've tried to fight it off, I've found myself using mpc more and more for my own stuff. I just like the way it sounds (clean), and the fact that I can squeeze such a high bitrate into such a relatively small filesize! I use -xtreme -scale .98.

mpc rocks - even if *sigh* there's goofy software patents in there. I'd like to use ogg vorbis out of principle (I use it sometimes) - but we'll see what the 1.0 release is like before I make that decision...

Any new CDs go to flac first. I like Monkey's Audio, but flac is about 99% as good, and is open, so I can create flacs in Linux / FreeBSD as well as Winders. It also has great Winamp / XMMS plugins, so no complaints there.  (flac.sourceforge.net (http://flac.sourceforge.net))

I still use --r3mix (lame 3.90a) for files for friends, though because none of my friends use mp3 hardware, I may likely force them to switch to ogg when 1.0 hits. We'll see (they do bitch when I give them mpc files - but ogg does promise wider adoption)...
Title: Which codec do you use?
Post by: outscape on 2001-09-30 00:16:22
mainly mp3, but i am thinking about switching to mpc altogether
Title: Which codec do you use?
Post by: Garf on 2001-09-30 00:24:44
Quote
Originally posted by krsna77
mpc rocks - even if *sigh* there's goofy software patents in there. I'd like to use ogg vorbis out of principle (I use it sometimes) - but we'll see what the 1.0 release is like before I make that decision...


I'll definetely fully switch over to ogg as soon as there are no problems with the vast majority of material I encode. My own mode probably fits this definition, but I know what's in the make with RC3 and I prefer to wait just a bit, because two of the things that are most improved are just the ones I had trouble with.

Quote
Any new CDs go to flac first. I like Monkey's Audio, but flac is about 99% as good, and is open, so I can create flacs in Linux / FreeBSD as well as Winders. It also has great Winamp / XMMS plugins, so no complaints there.


Yeah, I know FLAC, but I use MA mainly because it's easy. I have EAC set up to make APE files out of everything. If I need to convert them to another format, I can do it via MA and it even handles tagging for most formats (ogg being the notable expection).

Now that I have EAC set up to put all info in the filenames anyway FLAC would probably work just as well, but I'd still miss the 'convert' feature of MA.

On Linux this is less of an issue of course due to the possibility of scripting, but I'd still have to write the scripts, whereas now it's all done for me.

--
GCP
Title: Which codec do you use?
Post by: Dibrom on 2001-09-30 03:40:29
As many may know, I use MPC for my personal archival encodings.  The quality is simply amazing and it is the only codec which can reliably provide transparency for me on most of the electronic music I listen to.

That having been said, I also use mp3 and like to use LAME when it compatibility needs to be taken into consideration.  I mostly use mp3 when I send files to other people or when I encode files for portable use.

It seems quite a few portables are now beginning to support AAC though and I have been experimenting with it a little more too, so thats another interesting possibility.

And of course there is vorbis.  I really hope this format takes off because an open source, cross platform, patent free format is quite a nice thing to have  I'm taking a bit of a "wait and see" approach here but it does seem like everything is shaping up very quickly.  I can't wait to see what the first "stable" release is like.  The possibility of wavelets in the future also sounds quite interesting...
Title: Which codec do you use?
Post by: sphoid on 2001-09-30 04:36:29
well ive been an advocate of mp3 for quite some time.. i can remember dibrom coercing me back some years back before it was widely publicized into using it. I too have been guilty in the past of using AudioCatalyst with the Xing codec which i feel should be outlawed and the source thrown into the pit of hell.. but i digress. Ive dabbled in some of the other alternatives (aac, vqf, lqt, epc, etc) pros and cons on all of these formats vary but in the end i have always come back to mp3 for a number of reasons.

I would very much like to embrace mpc as i feel that it offers the most bang for your buck considering sound quality versus bitrate however i share dibrom's wait and see sentiment as its kind of iffy as to what the next wide spread use codec will be. My primary concern is the adoption of codecs in portable players. I personally would like to see Sonic Blue include mpc support for the rio volt but who knows if and when that would happen. For the time being i am content with my phillips expanium.

My weapon of choice is the Lame codec using dibrom's presets. I like mp3 for its portability and reasonable soundquality, however i will probably use mpc for my personal archives.
Title: Which codec do you use?
Post by: tangent on 2001-09-30 06:27:12
Vorbis 160kbps

So far my hearing isn't that good, and I have difficulty distinguishing a well-encoded 128kbps MP3 from original, therefore I chose the next bitrate up in case my listening ability improves in the near future. I choose Vorbis because I find the need to support open-source unpatented project.

However, I try not to encode anything unless I need to, prefering to wait it out until the full release of Vorbis.
Title: Which codec do you use?
Post by: merg on 2001-09-30 07:31:20
I'm a Lame (--r3mix) mp3 guy. I encoded all my cd's (4235 tracks) with this with versions 3.88-3.89 and I'm extremely happy with it. I tried the Ogg Vorbis encoder and liked the quality a lot, but I can't play them on my RioVolt... so I'll stick to mp3 for a while.
Title: Which codec do you use?
Post by: tomb-raider on 2001-09-30 07:31:27
Psytel AAC

Delivers excellent qaulity, could not hear any quality difference between aac and mpc at the same bitrates.
However, there are a lot s***ty patents attached to it , so would like to use ogg as soon as it gets worth it .
Title: Which codec do you use?
Post by: Jon Ingram on 2001-09-30 10:03:16
Vorbis at 128k, or 160k if I can notice any artifacts (which is rare), for home listening -- I'm not going for transparency, but to be able to store all of my music on my computer.

If I want to store music for later encoding, I use FLAC. I can't understand why anyone would *archive* material using a Windows only format like MA.
Title: Which codec do you use?
Post by: David Nordin on 2001-09-30 11:26:27
I too used to kill CDs with AudioCatalyst back in the days, In 8 to 10x(!)
first 192kbps then VBR "High quality":P

Nowadays I use EAC C2 and LAME, my line... err...

--vbr-mtrh -mj -V0 -q2 --nspsytune --nsmsfix .9 --ns-sfb21 1 --athtype 2 --ns-bass -(4-8) --ns-alto -(4-8) --ns-treble (0/1) -Z -c --scale 0.96 --disptime 1

-mj ? Well I thought --nspsytune did that autostylee, but nooo..
-c you ask! only for you my friend

I'm wondering what vorbis would be like if LAME crew went there and did some good:confused:

baibai...
Title: Which codec do you use?
Post by: Jan on 2001-09-30 11:34:53
I used to be satisfied with 128k mp3 in the past and thought Xing was good!!!:mad:  Then I bought some quality speakers and realized that I was betrayed! Then I found lame and am very happy with -r3mix. I'm just beginning to experiment with mpc, but don't know if the differences I hear with my AKG headphones are only psychological! 

So, I guess I stick with mp3 and switch to the std dibrom setting - just to be on the safe side (for MY hearing capabilities that is).

But why all the discussions about lame "shutting down"? Do we really need this growing variety of lossy encoders? Won't only 2 or 3 survive after all anyway? So why not stay with mp3? Or is its development already at its limit?
Title: Which codec do you use?
Post by: elfin on 2001-09-30 12:37:25
I tried them all.

At first in 1996 I used l3enc from FHG
Then layer 3 producer 1 and 2
For some period of time I even used Audio Catalyst's VBR, for what I'm very sorry.
I also tried to Use AAC, but I didn't like it.

Then I found about LAME. I Used it a lot and liked it a lot.

Now I'm testing ogg Vorbis, and I hope it will satisfy the quality demands.
But at the moment I just Use Money's Audio, so I can encode from it to Vorbis when it is mature. 

I'm also considering MPC. It satisfies the quality criteria and is the best sounding encoder of all. Maybe I'll even start encoding everything with MPC, if ogg Vorbis won't be done very soon or if it will not satisfy the quality. 

CDR's are so cheap now so in any case I'll use higest bitrate.
I'll just use the encoder that gives the best quality at 1:4 or 1:5 compression. I wont take any risk of finding artifacts later. I had my "Audio Catalist" dissapointment. 
Title: Which codec do you use?
Post by: stoff on 2001-09-30 14:02:24
Well, any decent CD that comes my way will just get burned to CD-R using EAC. No compromise here.

Otherwise it's all LAME VBR for me and my Rio Volt. It's a matter of compatibility (and pretty good quality).

The moment my Rio Volt will support Ogg Vorbis I'll give it a serious test and might even change. 

MPC and AAC is out of question because of compatibility issues. But if someone would code MPC support into the the Rio firmware, ahhh well. :drink:

regards stoff
Title: Which codec do you use?
Post by: YouriP on 2001-09-30 15:04:23
If I were to backup my audio, I'd use Monkey's Audio, even though I feel it is kind of bloated and would rather use LPAC with a good WinAmp plugin.

If I have to distribute audio with other people, I use Lame MP3. Can't beat the compatibility of MP3.

But if I'd have to use a form of compression for myself (including video distros, which btw, I would never use DivX for because I absolutely loathe it (do some tests between various encoders and you'll see why) and I truly can't wait for Ogg Tarkin), I'd go for AAC. The simple reason being that I am not looking for transparent audio - I'm looking for a codec that can deliver the best quality at the lowest bitrate. AAC is the only codec that can satisfy that demand.
Title: Which codec do you use?
Post by: tangent on 2001-09-30 17:44:49
I remember there was one period in time when I used 112kbps Real Audio .ra

Of course, that was before I heard of mp3 and started using l3enc
Title: Which codec do you use?
Post by: SNYder on 2001-09-30 19:40:45
I'm an APE man, personally.  I've gott pleanty of hard drive space, so size means nothing, but quality means everything.  But when I do have to go to a lossy format, if I am uploading it to music sites I choose r3mixed mp3's for compatability reasons, but if I am sending it to someone who I know knows what they are doing, I go with MPC.
Title: Which codec do you use?
Post by: Sawg on 2001-09-30 19:44:17
I used to be a "what's wrong with Xing @ 128kbps"

Anyways now for archiving its MP3 @ 320kbps (Lamed) and for sharing or ripping for friends its r3mix preset for Lame
Title: Which codec do you use?
Post by: HansHeijden on 2001-09-30 20:52:47
Though I love to experiment with all formats, there are just a few I actually used until now.

I've been using Monkey's Audio since it started, for (temporary) harddisk storage. I like it's speed, good compression and handy user interface.

Until recently, I used QDesign mp2 at 256 or 320 k for CDR backups. Two years ago it surely was better than Lame (version 3.50 or so)! Nowadays I settle for Lame mp3 at 320 k. Just don't dare to compromise into lower bitrates, I rather make 128 k versions in addition.
Title: Which codec do you use?
Post by: gambito on 2001-09-30 20:57:36
Archival it's done on cheap today's cd-r's

For listening on computer speakers or through home stereo i use lame with the dibrom's metal preset. I don't like the huge files of the other presets or the unpredictable size of the r3mix's one also for compatibility with most of the (software) players (love apollo and bpm studio).

For making samples for distribution I use vorbis at 80 that gives me files averaging 75 to 85 kbps with superb quality (for that bitrate!), better than wma7/8 that i was using previously

For storing until I'm ready to burn to cd-r I use monkey's audio

bye bye
Title: Which codec do you use?
Post by: Jon Ingram on 2001-10-01 08:01:04
Quote
Originally posted by gambito
For making samples for distribution I use vorbis at 80 that gives me files averaging 75 to 85 kbps with superb quality (for that bitrate!)


Have you found much difference between 64 and 80? All of the artifacts I've noticed with 64 have still been there with 80 (and 96), and I've not found a clip that sounds significantly better for the extra 16 kb/s.

(I hope RC3 has a tuned 112 mode again -- that's the bitrate I tended to use with Beta4 and it worked well enough for background listening)
Title: Which codec do you use?
Post by: gambito on 2001-10-01 15:33:20
I've encoded a variety of music (it's a sampler) and yes i noticed an audible difference. Well maybe this deppend on the quality of the listener ears  and my poor ears can hear only to 15khz

furthermore i'm not using the rc-2 on vorbis.com but the rc-2 on easy cd-da extractor that appears to sound better and his output almost equal to the august 30 build posted here:

http://www.din.or.jp/~glit/TheOddStage/Pro...utobuild_e.html (http://www.din.or.jp/~glit/TheOddStage/Progs/Vorbis/autobuild_e.html)
Title: Which codec do you use?
Post by: Jan S. on 2001-10-01 15:41:50
I use mpc -extreme.

The only problem is that I love id3-tags so I hope that mpc will some day have id3v2 tags also.
Does anyone know if it will?
Title: Which codec do you use?
Post by: Garf on 2001-10-01 17:08:43
Quote
Originally posted by gambito
furthermore i'm not using the rc-2 on vorbis.com but the rc-2 on easy cd-da extractor that appears to sound better and his output almost equal to the august 30 build posted here:


The august 30 build may have stereo fixes, which would remove the hissyness, but also includes noise masking which was totally unstable at that time. (Unstable enough that Monty asked me and FastForward _not_ to distribute binaries)

I don't really like what Easy CDDA  is doing...if they are using the CVS version (from your comments they should be, as there were no official releases after RC2) it's wrong to advertise it as RC2. Have fun debugging bugs/quality problem reports if the versions users think they've got are wrong!

RC3alpha0.1 or so would be a more appropriate tag in this case.

--
GCP
Title: Which codec do you use?
Post by: dawsoo2222 on 2001-10-01 17:15:01
I use for CDR Archiving (later use) Monkey-APE,and music for me Psytel AAC 1.0 160kbps -vbrhi or MPC -extreme,for compatability (PC DJ,etc..) lame 3.90a7 "-ms -br 256 -q 0" or "-mj -abr 160 -q 2" And newly tested Vorbis-OGG 0.8 RC2.For CD grab EAC or CDex.Soundcard M-Audio Delta Audiophile 2496.
Title: Which codec do you use?
Post by: Ivion on 2001-10-01 22:12:17
Well.....here's my story :
I began with Xing Audiocatalyst (I'm so ashamed of myself....then I always tought the quality was good )
After that i started experimenting with many other codecs...the most important were (and I still use these ): LAME, MP+/MPC, OGG and AAC.
I also tested Blade....but I never used it again....man....the sound sucked.
I use MP+ the most....it has the best compression method...I can only hear the diference between the orginal and the MP+ file in very rare cases.
OGG is also very good....I think it'll be a great codec someday.
I also use MP3 alot...mainly because my friends don't understand those other codecs.
And ofcourse; AAC. Idon't use this codec very much...only for a few of my older songs i recorded then with AAC....because MP+ is just a little better.

Well that was my story ....thx for readin'!
Title: Which codec do you use?
Post by: Agent86 on 2001-10-02 05:45:38
Oh boy... I remember when Winplay3 was the standard player .

Regardless, I used FhG for a long time until I started reading up on decoders, and then that lead to encoders and LAME.

I picked it up on the tail end of LAME 3.87's beta run, and re-encoded much of my collection (which was then 128cbr) with the --r3mix setting at that time.  It was lightyears better then what I was getting out of FhG, and sold me forever.

Since then I have followed LAME through 3.88, 3.89 and 3.90 Alpha 7.

I like the idea/work behind Ogg - so that's my side "toy" when it comes to tracking new encoders.  Like many others, I'm waiting for it to settle down a bit and get into a gradual (yet rapid) feature/bugfix path.  Once it gets a green light from people who are much better at this then I, I'll start giving it a go.

- Agent 86
Title: Which codec do you use?
Post by: gambito on 2001-10-02 06:08:18
> The august 30 build may have stereo fixes, which would
>remove the hissyness, but also includes noise masking which
> was totally unstable at that time...

that hissyness was a  real annoyance in the original rc-2 and i like more that unstable rc-3 alpha, it's a sad that the later alphas only support 128kbps

i can't wait so much for rc-3
Title: Which codec do you use?
Post by: h on 2001-10-02 06:26:46
Oh jeez.. I started out "archiving" CDs with Blade at 128k - the artifacts never bothered me that much (with my $10 sound card and speakers), and I thought I was old skool for using the highest quality setting and disabling the lowpass.

Lately I've been archiving CDs with psytel aacenc "-ultra" and using 128kbit Oggs for casual listening - not sure why, my ears are so bad I could probably get away with 96kbit.  I can ABX differences at higher bitrates, but it takes a huge effort, and I never pick artifacts in casual listening unless Xing, Blade or WMA are the culprits.

Sometimes I don't know whether to envy or pity a set of "golden ears" =)

-h
Title: Which codec do you use?
Post by: Jon Ingram on 2001-10-02 07:52:14
Quote
Originally posted by h
Sometimes I don't know whether to envy or pity a set of "golden ears" =)

And that brings up a couple of interesting points.

Firstly -- a lot of effort seems to be going into optimizing sound quality for 'golden ears'. Given that these people are by definition abnormal ( :-) ), is it possible that improving the sound quality for them could actually reduce sound quality for the average person?

Secondly -- are all artifacts bad? Do any codecs actually produce artifacts which *improve* the quality of the sound?
Title: Which codec do you use?
Post by: YinYang on 2001-10-02 08:04:17
Quote
Originally posted by Jon Ingram

And that brings up a couple of interesting points.

..is it possible that improving the sound quality for them could actually reduce sound quality for the average person?


Don't think so. But this is merely an intuitial response.

Quote
Secondly -- are all artifacts bad? Do any codecs actually produce artifacts which *improve* the quality of the sound?


I believe that artifacts have made me aware of more songs with hidden "The Devil Made Me Do It" meanings.

["Did I ever tell you about this hidden backward sentence I only heard in a Xing-encoded MP3 of "Amazing Grace" "]
Title: Which codec do you use?
Post by: h on 2001-10-02 08:29:05
> .. is it possible that improving the sound quality for them could actually reduce sound quality for the average person?

For the most part, people with better hearing can point out the artifacts which they find most prominent with better accuracy.  The rest of us can then enjoy slightly better quality than before, since that weird niggly feeling we had about a certain hihat has been usefully (and verbosely) identified by someone else, and fixed in the encoder.

> Secondly -- are all artifacts bad? Do any codecs actually produce artifacts which *improve* the quality of the sound?

I guess a wavelet-based audio coder could inadvertently remove noise from a recording (wavelet image compression is a nice noise remover), but artifacts are generally a Bad Thing.

Unless you like how $encoder performs at 32 kbit/s =)

-h
Title: Which codec do you use?
Post by: Dibrom on 2001-10-02 09:20:07
Quote
Originally posted by Jon Ingram

And that brings up a couple of interesting points.

Firstly -- a lot of effort seems to be going into optimizing sound quality for 'golden ears'. Given that these people are by definition abnormal ( :-) ), is it possible that improving the sound quality for them could actually reduce sound quality for the average person?


I don't think so.  Most people hear the same artifacts, and hear them in the same "way", just not to the same degree I think.  Also, if certain codecs which are tuned by listeners with very sensitive hearing are any indication (I believe MPC and PsyTEL AAC are 2 prime examples), then this can only actually be a good thing.

Quote
Secondly -- are all artifacts bad? Do any codecs actually produce artifacts which *improve* the quality of the sound?


I think this depends more on your idea of what sounds good in music.  For example, there are many people that prefer the sound of vinyl and tube amps over cds and solid state.  Obviously the former adds more of a certain "character" to the sound which may not necessarily be present in the original, and some people like this.  Then there is also the issue of things like sound "enhancers" or things like that, I tend to think most of the time those types of things are bad myself... though others sound modification devices like EQ's can be a good thing.  So, I believe the answer to this is really pretty subjective.  To me, accuracy to the original source material, no matter whether or not THAT sounds bad, is what is important.
Title: Which codec do you use?
Post by: ozy on 2001-10-02 22:39:12
Hi, this is my first post here and i'll get straight to the point.

Once upon a time, I used to be content with 128kbps CBR rips (Xing) - but now, after discovering the strange, mysterious land of "r3mix" (and now here too), paranoia has set in. I just tend to rip the tracks from the CD directly and compress with Monkeys Audio. I think it's a psychological thing; it's nice to know in the back of my mind that no data has been lost, and i'm listening to an exact replica of the original.
However, for tracks I don't care much for I usually just rip to MP3 (--remix VBR). I've not tried Dibrom's settings, but i'm guessing I wouldn't notice the difference between the two. I'm keeping a close eye on Vorbis though, I think it's the most promising format for the future.
Title: Which codec do you use?
Post by: Volcano on 2001-10-03 09:53:55
I started with FastEnc at 128 kbps and used it for one year. I could hear the artifacts on many tracks, but I wasn't too bothered about perfect quality then. It sounded good enough for me (for "casual" listening), and I still think that FastEnc is the best 128 kbps MP3 codec.
Half a year ago, I switched to EAC + LAME --r3mix, which I think is really good. I can sort of live with the bitrates, and to me, the quality is outstanding.
Doesn't mean I'm creating "good" MP3s though, as EAC recently has messed up all my WAV files and introduced clicks everywhere

I'm taking a close look at OGG 128 kbps. As long as the artifacts aren't too annoying, I can live with a _slight_ audible loss in quality. The main thing stopping me from switching to OGG is the lack of ID3v2 tags (which I use excessively ) and the "compatibility to friends".

CU
Dominic
Title: Which codec do you use?
Post by: Jon Ingram on 2001-10-03 12:27:52
Quote
I'm taking a close look at OGG 128 kbps. As long as the artifacts aren't too annoying, I can live with a _slight_ audible loss in quality. The main thing stopping me from switching to OGG is the lack of ID3v2 tags (which I use excessively ) and the "compatibility to friends".


Well, RC2 Vorbis 128K is working perfectly well on 90% of the music I've thrown at it. The stuff that hasn't worked well has either been very echoey (Vorbis seems to muffle the sound) or has certain high pitched noises (which sound a bit 'crunchy'). Going to 160K solves all of these as far as *my* hearing is concerned.

I'm looking forward to RC3 -- particularly listening to the lower bitrates. 64K Vorbis could be a great way to preview albums before they buy them.

--

Why do you need ID3 tags, when Vorbis has a much simpler and more flexible tagging system? You can include as much meta-data as you want, naming the fields whatever you want.
Title: Which codec do you use?
Post by: Volcano on 2001-10-03 13:01:27
Quote
Originally posted by Jon Ingram
Well, RC2 Vorbis 128K is working perfectly well on 90% of the music I've thrown at it. The stuff that hasn't worked well has either been very echoey (Vorbis seems to muffle the sound) or has certain high pitched noises (which sound a bit 'crunchy'). Going to 160K solves all of these as far as *my* hearing is concerned.

I'll try 160kbps. I tested 128k OGG some while ago, I could still easily tell the difference to the original, but the quality was still very good - I could live with it.
Quote
I'm looking forward to RC3 -- particularly listening to the lower bitrates.

Yep. If the 128 kbps mode produces even better results than it does currently, I think I really will switch over. Would save me a lot of disk space...
Quote
Why do you need ID3 tags, when Vorbis has a much simpler and more flexible tagging system? You can include as much meta-data as you want, naming the fields whatever you want.

That's exactly what I don't like about it. Winamp's ID3v2 editor offers me Composer, Original Artist, Copyright and Encoded By, all of which (except URL) I use for all encodes. I wouldn't want to punch in all the names of these fields myself.
Besides, I can't edit all those values with ID3 taggers like MP3/Tag Studio (yeah I know, spyware and all, but there's a simple way round that problem), which also is quite a piss-off.

CU
Dominic
Title: Which codec do you use?
Post by: dmarc34 on 2001-10-11 14:22:10
Hi,

This is my first post in this great forum...

My History :

I first used MP3 encoding with easy CDDA Extractor (with a Blade encoder, first at 192 Kb/s and after at  256 Kb/s). The majority of my collection was made with this software (not too bad at 256)

Now I'm using EAC with Lame (3.90) with r3mix or dm presets. For listening, I use Winamp with the MAD plugin.

I also use MPC (standard) and I will try ogg when the next release will be available.
Title: Which codec do you use?
Post by: tHe_BiNk on 2001-10-25 13:00:05
Hi,

mostly (razor)lame at 192 vbr or FAAC-FAAD at 128
Title: Which codec do you use?
Post by: john33 on 2001-10-25 13:13:42
If you are looking at Ogg 128, you might want to try the daily binaries at:

http//www.din.or.jp/~glit/TheOddStage/Progs/Vorbis/autobuild_e.html

These only encode at 128 but to my ears there is a big improvement over RC2. Give it a try and let us know what you think.

john33
Title: Which codec do you use?
Post by: huanjo on 2001-10-25 17:35:52
The theory of evolution says that the best will always eventually come to the fore. Thats why I'm placing my bets on mpc.
Title: Which codec do you use?
Post by: Somebody on 2001-10-25 20:41:22
I use mpc for my personal use (which is most of the time now)

other than that, I use LAME with dibrom's presets.
Title: Which codec do you use?
Post by: krsna77 on 2001-10-26 20:48:56
Quote
Originally posted by huanjo
The theory of evolution says that the best will always eventually come to the fore. Thats why I'm placing my bets on mpc.


If that were the whole story, then Microsoft would not be the dominant software company they are today.

An amended theory of software evolution (and economics) would state that there are always many other variables to consider than mere technical superiority, that eventually lead to dominance.
Title: Which codec do you use?
Post by: Garf on 2001-10-26 20:57:04
The theory of evolution still holds.

It's just that 'best' mostly isn't related to audio quality, but to marketing, FUD and monopoly tactics.

--
GCP
Title: Which codec do you use?
Post by: deej_1977 on 2001-10-28 14:31:57
In the case of M$ there's also the factor "blatant stupidity of the IBM people". If they had played their card rights at least OS/2 would have still been around in an "active way" (now it's a bit marginalised)
Title: Which codec do you use?
Post by: FCA on 2001-10-28 20:20:21
I was happy enough to start with a trial copy of Audiograbber (56 kbps ugh....) making me look for  "free MP3 encoder" the next instant. That search landed me on r3mix, and made me appreciate at least higher quality sounds.
I'm currently using Lame MP3 (R3mix), MPC -standard and - extreme and OGG 160 kbps , though I think about switching everything to OGG 160 for space reasons (maybe even 128, my hearing is not too good, I'm too scared to test frequency response  )
Title: Which codec do you use?
Post by: spase on 2001-10-29 03:56:50
i use mpc.... mainly because it uses very little cpu (for playing at least) and the quality is extremely good... if not the best (i suppose thats quite debatable)....... also there actually is quite a bit of music out there just gotta know where to look (email me or msg me or something and ill tell you... this really isnt the place to say)....

anyways yes i have tried ogg and aac and everythign

mpc is more complete than ogg (as far as stages of developments) its more stable than aac (at least in my experience) and its higher quality than mp3....

feel free to argue...
Title: Which codec do you use?
Post by: Override on 2001-10-29 09:41:55
I'm using Ogg for most of my music. The 128kbit/s preset works better than mp3, without taking that much more size. The encoder also works pretty fast, which is important to me.
Title: Which codec do you use?
Post by: gnoshi on 2001-11-26 00:51:44
I started a long while back with l3enc at 128.
For a while, I played with VQF, but eventually decided it just wasn't that good (and far too slow).
When MpegPlus first came out, I tested that for a while, but decided compatibility won out.

Then I got my hands on lame, and started using that (still at 128kbps... shame on me).

I started experimenting with vorbis at beta 2, and around beta 4 I started encoding more and more at 160kbps.

These days, I have completely transitioned from mp3 to vorbis, at 160kbps using garf's tuned encoder #2.

Oh, and I use EAC for ripping, it is all good.

gnoshi
Title: Which codec do you use?
Post by: 2Bdecided on 2001-11-26 12:56:24
I was the sinner who voted "mp3 FhG" in the poll. Yes, that "1" was me!

It's great to go against the flow! ;-)

But I have to confess that I've used --alt-preset normal for my last encoding and been very pleased. It's just I don't always have three hours to encode an album (PII 300MHz).

I can neither share mpc, nor play it on my portable hardware (which I don't even own yet, but it's on my Christmas list! ;-)). So it's not even an option.

Cheers,
David.
Title: Which codec do you use?
Post by: gutzalpus on 2001-11-26 13:36:55
Try using the --r3mix preset to encode with Lame.  It's not as good quality as Dibrom's, but it encodes very quickly (about an hour per full CD on my P2/233) and the quality is still very good.
Title: Which codec do you use?
Post by: Volcano on 2001-11-26 13:42:23
I guess David knows about the --r3mix preset, gutzalpus
Title: Which codec do you use?
Post by: Corsair on 2001-11-28 10:04:09
I use Ogg Vorbis/Garf's tuned -b350 mode. The quality is excellent (definitely better then MP3 320kbps) and the bitrate is acceptable - it varies between 300-320kbps most of the time. Also, with Vorbis you get flexible tagging system (unlike ID3), and gapless songs work flawlessly.
Title: Which codec do you use?
Post by: jgalt on 2001-11-28 11:39:51
My requirements are probably vastly different from most in this thread. I restore the material from very old phonograph records, dating as far back as the very first records. I exchange this material with others via e-mail attachments. Most of the recipients use 56K modems.

I am concerned with quality but quality is limited in this old material. I want quality versus small file size.  MP3 at low bit rates wasn't satisfactory. VQF and WMA were satisfactory. But I feel the need to support the Ogg Vorbis project and my results have been more than satisfactory - good quality vs small file size.

I am elderly and I'm sure my hearing is deficient. I have a decent amp and speakers on my PC and I like what I hear with Ogg! I'm not in a position to evaluate the results of my work other than by using my ears.  I've been using the RC2 Drag & drop encoder and am anxiously awaiting a later release.
Title: Which codec do you use?
Post by: Neo Neko on 2001-12-07 07:44:31
I am undoubtedly a Vorbis freak in every way. I have compressed 300+ CDs to high bitrate Vorbis and I am quite happy with em. Not to mention 20+ divx avi clips with vorbis audio. I had to rework nandub a bit to pull that off.  Granted I have an MP3 player(sans firmware update option. ) But I use it less and less now that I have my laptop. Only on long trips or times I can't have the good ole LT with me do I actually mess with the MP3 player. If I want lossless encoding I will keep the stuff PCM encoded on the CDs. But if I want compressed stuff to play on my PC Vorbis is king for me! In fact I am listening to a Vorbis encode of a Saint Etienne track right now and must say that it rocks!
Title: Which codec do you use?
Post by: superorc on 2001-12-13 08:55:15
hehe when i had my pentium 75 it was l3enc. ugh took around 1 hour to encode at 128kbit. then audiocatalyst with xing. then i got into lame at 3.70 time. i have used mpc and ogg, but im sticking with lame 3.90 rev7 and monkeys audio. im using winamp + MAD decoder and a compaq ipaq pocket pc 3630 with a 1 gig ibm microdrive and a rio volt for portable playing.
Title: Which codec do you use?
Post by: maciey on 2001-12-13 14:57:39
I have started encoding using some MPlifier. Then I learned what an 'artifact' sounds like (on some Pink Floyd track). But I wasn't concerned much about MP3 back then. Then Came Xing's Audiocatalyst (damn' it was fast). Then I have found about LAME, played around with non-tuned GPSYCHO VBR (--vbr-new -V3 -ms) and --r3mix. Then I've found this site and it convinced me to switching to --dm-preset (now --alt-preset). I have some portable MP3 player, so MPC od AAC are both of no interest for me, but --alt-prset standard (rev7) sounds great for me now.
Good Job, Dibrom -thank you!
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2021