Hydrogenaudio Forums

Hydrogenaudio Forum => Polls => Topic started by: guruboolez on 01 January, 2009, 10:33:37 AM

Poll
Question: What's your *main lossy* format of choice?
Option 1: MP3 votes: 497
Option 2: Ogg Vorbis votes: 120
Option 3: AAC (MP4, M4A, AAC) votes: 137
Option 4: MPC votes: 38
Option 5: WavPack lossy votes: 3
Option 6: LossyWAV + lossless votes: 8
Option 7: WMA Standard or PRO (lossy) votes: 4
Option 8: Atrac (any version) votes: 0
Option 9: other lossy format votes: 0
Option 10: I don't use lossy AT ALL! votes: 34
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: guruboolez on 01 January, 2009, 10:33:37 AM
Happy new year to everyone 

As last year and the year before, I invite every HA.org members to answer a few questions. 920 persons take part to the same poll in 2007. And in 2008, a new record was broken with more than 1200 participants. I would thank the HA.org team who makes this score possible by giving to this poll a lot of visibility (it was pinned and appeared on HA portal during several weeks). I invite of course everyone to break it in the next months.

With all datas we gathered in the last year we now have nice and interesting curves:

[a href="http://img206.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ha1fg1.png" target="_blank"]

____
NB: To keep this first post short, I will post the links to previous polls and all exact datas a bit later.
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: Synthetic Soul on 01 January, 2009, 11:06:30 AM
MP3 (LAME 3.98 -V5) for listening on PC and DAP.
Wavpack images with embedded cuesheets for archiving.

Happy New Year!

Good work once again guruboolez.
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: drbeachboy on 01 January, 2009, 11:21:55 AM
MP3 Tracks (LAME 3.98.2 -V2.5) for iPod and home PC
FLAC Images (1.2.1 -8) with embedded cuesheet, EAC Log and Cover.

Happy New Year!
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: stranhoROX on 01 January, 2009, 11:23:06 AM
Happy 2009!!

I use FLAC + cuesheet for my library. And I have no portable/DAP, so lossy encoding is useless for me.
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: LANjackal on 01 January, 2009, 11:33:18 AM
LAME 3.98 -V0 for listening
APE Extra High + Cue + Log for CD backups
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: guruboolez on 01 January, 2009, 11:43:27 AM
Here are the full datas:
Code: [Select]
      |   AAC   |   MP3   |   MPC   |  Vorbis |  FLAC   |   APE   |  TAK   | WavPack
------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|--------|---------
2001  |   7,42  |  28,71  |  29,95  |  22,94  |         |         |        |        
2002  |   5,60  |  32,32  |  29,60  |  25,89  |  35,56  |  57,41  |  ----- |  1,85
2003  |  10,96  |  21,92  |  47,49  |  19,63  |  54,22  |  31,33  |  ----- |  5,42
2004  |  11,14  |  28,01  |  28,45  |  20,38  |  -----  |  -----  |  ----- |  -----
2005  |  11,26  |  36,09  |  24,17  |  25,50  |  52,73  |  18,18  |  ----- |  14,83
2006  |  12,67  |  46,04  |   9,68  |  27,39  |  52,66  |   8,31  |  0,46  |  32,33
2007  |  12,77  |  54,22  |   4,44  |  22,84  |  59,42  |   4,65  |  0,76  |  21,97
2008  |  16,25  |  56,19  |   3,80  |  17,66  |  65,59  |   4,29  |  4,46  |  14,52


Thanks to houyhnhnm (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=51493&view=findpost&p=537917) who dig some old polls I didn't found myself.

Now, the difference between 2007 and 2008:

Code: [Select]
        |  2007   |  2008   |  
--------|---------|---------|------------
WavPack |  21,97  |  14,52  |  -33,91 %
Vorbis  |  22,84  |  17,66  |  -22,68 %
MPC     |   4,44  |   3,80  |  -14,41 %
APE     |   4,65  |   4,29  |   -7,74 %
MP3     |  54,22  |  56,19  |    3,63 %
FLAC    |  59,42  |  65,59  |   10,38 %
AAC     |  12,77  |  16,25  |   27,25 %
TAK     |   0,76  |   4,46  |  486,84 %


For the second consecutive year Vorbis and WavPack have both lost some attraction inside the HA.org basis. The most popular lossy and lossless formats in 2007 (MP3 and FLAC) have also increased their popularity. FLAC is cannibalizing the market with 2/3 of the voters. It's a unique situation in the whole HA history. The most impressive progress comes from TAK which appears now on the podium as the third most popular lossless format.

The old "elephants" which ruled the forum some years ago (MPC and Monkey's Audio) are slowly fading away but they have this year maintained most of their remaining users basis. They seem to have truly loyal users. AAC progressed very well this year after 5 years of relative stagnation.



___
On my side my votes are for AAC + FLAC + one file per track. I haven't changed anything since 2008.
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: Soap on 01 January, 2009, 11:59:08 AM
FLAC -8 (single files per track) for archive and PC / streaming device playback.
LAME -V3 for DAP playback.

It isn't that I can hear the difference between V3 and FLAC for PC / streaming device playback, it is that I don't keep a MP3 copy on my NAS box as I transcode on transfer.
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: collector on 01 January, 2009, 12:17:43 PM
FLAC -6 for archive and listening until lossywav was released
lossyWav q8 +FLAC -6
mp3 V4 for DAP

And a happy and healthy 2009 to you all.
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: d0ng on 01 January, 2009, 01:21:10 PM
Like most, have FLAC -8 for archival purposes and listening purposes and use MP3 -V0 for portable use.
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: Bjossi on 01 January, 2009, 01:33:06 PM
Vorbis q10 (aoTuV) for archiving & listening.
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: DigitalMan on 01 January, 2009, 01:46:01 PM
FLAC V8 for archive, LAME MP3/V4 for casual/portable use

It would be interesting to know how much of the shift in codecs is due to new members joining vs. long time members - are long time members shifting codecs or are they being outnumbered by new members with different choices?  Membership has grown considerably over the years and might be reflecting the general population a little more.

However, for some reason I suspect long time members are shifting codecs too...

FLAC V8 for archive, LAME MP3/V4 for casual/portable use

It would be interesting to know how much of the shift in codecs is due to new members joining vs. long time members - are long time members shifting codecs or are they being outnumbered by new members with different choices?  Membership has grown considerably over the years and might be reflecting the general population a little more.

However, for some reason I suspect long time members are shifting codecs too...
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: Bjossi on 01 January, 2009, 01:56:11 PM
When I joined (which wasn't too long ago) I was a vorbis user like I am now.
But like most people my digital audio encoding started off with mp3.
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: PJay-Z on 01 January, 2009, 02:30:28 PM
MP3 (LAME 3.98.2 -V2 --vbr-new or better)
FLAC (1.2.1 -V -8)
One file per track

My favorite programs: dBpoweramp 13.1 ref - EAC

Happy new year %-)
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: Axon on 01 January, 2009, 02:34:10 PM
I typically use Nero AAC for my iPod, but now that it might have bit the dust, my primary lossy encoding might be what I use for vinyl rips (lossyWAV).
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: kornchild2002 on 01 January, 2009, 02:42:44 PM
I use Apple Lossless (ripped and encoded with dBpowerAMP, not iTunes) for my archive needs.  It is compatible with iTunes and my iPods.

I then use -V 3 with Lame 3.98.2 for my lossy standard.  I listen to my lossy files on my computer, my portable player (mainly an iPod but I occasionally use my Zen), and my large speaker system using my PS3 or Xbox 360 for playback.

Edit: Alright, my lossy standard has changed.  I recently purchased a 120GB iPod classic, a car connectivity kit giving me great quality, and a new AppleTV device.  I am no longer relying on my Xbox 360 or PS3 for audio playback through my speakers and I do not need to stick with mp3 for playback in my car.  I was going to switch to Nero at -q0.40 (so that I could fit more content on my 1G 16GB iPod touch) but I have no need to use that setting.  I have switched to Nero AAC at -q0.50.  The files are still compatible with my Xbox 360 but I can fit all my lossy files on my AppleTV, fit all of my lossy files and videos on my iPod, and I can easily playback the files in my mp3/WMA only car CD deck via the iPod connectivity kit.  I have been waiting a long time to switch to Nero AAC and I feel that now is the time.  Sorry Lame, you have served me for 5+ years now but Nero keeps peaking my interest.
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: Bodhi on 01 January, 2009, 03:11:52 PM
MP3 (LAME 3.98.2 -V3 --vbr-new)
FLAC (1.2.1 -V -5)
One file per track

HAPPY NEW YEAR!
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: skizman on 01 January, 2009, 03:29:32 PM
can WAV be a codec?
I don't bother with FLAC
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: Ron Jones on 01 January, 2009, 03:32:03 PM
MP3 (LAME 3.98.2 V0)
FLAC (1.2.1 @ 8)
One file per track

I also use Nero AAC -q 0.4 for my iPhone, but I may switch that to LAME V5 at some point this year.
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: vitos on 01 January, 2009, 03:32:31 PM
Results from last years, and current poll too, clearly show the main point to win - hardware compatibility.
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: guruboolez on 01 January, 2009, 03:36:52 PM
can WAV be a codec?
I don't bother with FLAC

WAV is not really a codec but rather a container (usually for PCM data on Windows platforms). But you can vote for this: it belongs in the « other lossless format » category.
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: IgorC on 01 January, 2009, 03:55:22 PM
AAC
FLAC
one file per track.

For my ears AAC 1.5-1.6x more efficient than MP3
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=66949 (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=66949)

During previous year I gave a try to TAK but now I stay with FLAC. FLAC has wide soft/hard compability and it's most efficient for my usage. (speed, compression ratio, etc)
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: Alexxander on 01 January, 2009, 04:01:33 PM
For a long time I rip to FLAC -8 and one file per track. For portability I used until now mp3 -V2 but in the last 2 weeks I'm playing and ABX-ing a lot with Nero AAC and a little bit with latest Ogg aoTuV. The latter I discarded to continue testing because of poor compatibility on non-PC hardware (not because of quality at 160-240kbps range which is rather high).
I'm testing Nero AAC mainly at q0.5 and q0.6 and I like the obtained quality very very much. I still have to do some more testing about the q-level but I've almost decided to drop mp3 and go for AAC as I think hardware support will grow fast. My only concern is if Nero AAC will always be free.
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: lvqcl on 01 January, 2009, 04:08:05 PM
Voted for MP3. But I also use Vorbis (aoTuV), especially when I have to transcode files.
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: Gow on 01 January, 2009, 04:48:37 PM
Nero AAC is overtaking Lame 3.98.2 for my lossy use...though it nothing on my lossyWAV+TAK library that serves as the resource for conversion to many lossy formats, and what I listen to on my desktop.  Notebook is non-lossyWAV though.

For archival purposes, I used Wavpack 4.5x initially, switched to flac 1.2.x for a couple CDs then straight to TAK 1.0.4 and from there have used Tak at -p5/-p4...

...with EMBEDDED cuesheets and logs in a single file sauce. Yum!
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: robert on 01 January, 2009, 04:52:35 PM
MP3 for playback on PCs (the few ones with small HDs or small quotas), no lossless (just the ripped PCM as WAVE files as backups), one file per track
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: carpman on 01 January, 2009, 05:11:35 PM
For complete collections (albums, suites, symphonies etc ...)
Lossy: LossyWAV + TAK (for most)
Lossless: TAK  (mainly for solo piano)

For individual loose tracks:
MP3 LAME 3.98  -V 2

Always 1 file per track.

C.
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: Agent69 on 01 January, 2009, 05:23:39 PM
I just finished ripping my entire CD collection, and I decided to go with Wav+Cue for the inital ripping, but I am considering switching to a lossless codec with individual files so that I can take advantage of Replay Gain. The difference in volume from CD to CD can be incredible.
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: DreamTactix291 on 01 January, 2009, 06:01:10 PM
TAK 1.0.4 -p5m for lossless (will move to -p4m with 1.1.0) as single file with embedded cuesheet.

Mainly Nero AAC 1.3.3.0 -q0.40 for lossy which is used on my 4G iPod Nano.
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: DonP on 01 January, 2009, 06:01:12 PM
As "main" I voted Vorbis for lossy as it works on PC plus every portable I've ever owned, and FLAC for lossless.

My main DAP plays musepack and speex so I've started trying them for music and audiobooks on that.  It records wavepack!

Oddly, for me mp3 comes in slightly behind Vorbis on portability as every time I install a Linux distro it does not come with mp3 and it takes at least a little while to find a decoder.
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: punkrockdude on 01 January, 2009, 08:29:47 PM
I really like ogg vorbis the most but the fact that not many players supports it, software and hardware, plus that the development is quite quiet now a days made me affraid of ripping all my stuff to ogg so I went with AAC. AAC/MP4/M4A is supported by most players I have tried and without any ABX to back it up I think AAC competes with OGG very well.

I use FLAC for most of everything I rip now a days. I also use FLAC to compress sessions I record made by multitrack software if I am sending it over the net to other people. Since it nowadays supports metatags like broadcast waves use to know the position of samples makes it a killer choose. Also the speed ofthe codec.

These are my thoughts and believes. Regards
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: Neasden on 01 January, 2009, 08:58:50 PM
FLAC (level any) for playback.
TAK -p5m as a second copy backup.

Don't use lossy anymore.
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: Silversight on 01 January, 2009, 09:09:53 PM
Independent on playability, I switched from FLAC to TAK last year for archiving purposes. For everyday playback I use a mixture of Ogg Vorbis and Nero LC-AAC. My mobile phone supports AAC, so for that device I transcode the TAKs down to ~96 kbit AACs with ReplayGain hardcoded to 93 dB. Works well enough.

A year ago I didn't even know the difference between LC and HE-AAC...
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: DARcode on 01 January, 2009, 10:10:41 PM
Me sigs says it all, still lossy for DAP and lossless for home, always one file per track (with cuesheet and EAC log too tho).

EDIT: EAC log part.
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: DARcode on 01 January, 2009, 10:22:57 PM
MP3 for playback on PCs (the few ones with small HDs or small quotas), no lossless (just the ripped PCM as WAVE files as backups), one file per track
Since you're a LAME dev I'm curious about your choice of backup (uncompressed): do you keep the metadata in your MP3's only (ID3v2?) or do you store it in some kinda DB along with the WAV's please?
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: twostar on 02 January, 2009, 01:35:27 AM
I voted MP3, FLAC and one file per track.

Since this is a RIPPING and encoding poll, it would also be interesting to find out the preferred ripper for the HA community.
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: guruboolez on 02 January, 2009, 06:35:47 AM
It would be nice too. But it needs a separate poll because only three questions are possible in a single poll.
I don't have too much knowledge in ripping process to create such poll - I'm sure I'll miss important elements or miss the most pertinent questions if I try to create one.
But anyone could do it, or start a debate about what to put inside this second poll. What do you think?
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: DonP on 02 January, 2009, 07:27:20 AM
I haven't been keeping up... I see a lot of people using TAK so went looking.  I'd worry about the combo of closed source,  no hardware, windows only. 

If the developer drops dead (or loses interest) and for some reason it doesn't work on the next release of Windows, you get caught short having to scrounge up an older PC to convert your collection to something that still works.
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: Kitsuned on 02 January, 2009, 08:19:29 AM
Lossy - MP3, Lame 3.98 build, -V3 and I only use this for portable use on the go.

Lossless - FLAC, 1.2.1 build, use this for listening on the PC through an external soundcard

One file per track.  Simplest method to do.
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: seVen on 02 January, 2009, 08:21:13 AM
Ripper: dBpoweramp

Encoding/Tagging: foobar2000

Encoders:

- NERO AAC q0.50 for PC listening and portable (Sony NWZ-A818, iPod Touch)
- FLAC -8 for archive, PC listening and portable (Cowon iAudio 7)

For archive, one single file per disc with embedded cuesheet and covers, which i find excellent to manage for me. Covers are embedded using Mp3tag (waiting foobar support...).

I hope for 2009 a more and better hardware support for AAC (like PS3/X360 starting to recognize TAGs...) but especially lossless support, and as a last note that Cowon and Sony start to learn how to make gapless playback on their players... 

Happy new year! 
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: collector on 02 January, 2009, 02:51:14 PM
I just finished ripping my entire CD collection, and I decided to go with Wav+Cue for the inital ripping, but I am considering switching to a lossless codec with individual files so that I can take advantage of Replay Gain. The difference in volume from CD to CD can be incredible.

Wav is lossless too and you can also use RG on disc images.
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: robert on 02 January, 2009, 03:10:05 PM

MP3 for playback on PCs (the few ones with small HDs or small quotas), no lossless (just the ripped PCM as WAVE files as backups), one file per track
Since you're a LAME dev I'm curious about your choice of backup (uncompressed): do you keep the metadata in your MP3's only (ID3v2?) or do you store it in some kinda DB along with the WAV's please?

I'm simply using the file system with the following naming scheme:
./CD/<CD Artist>/<Year>-<CD Title>/<Track Number> <Track Title>.WAV or
./CD/Various/<Year>-<CD Title>/<Track Number> <Track Title> - <Track Artist>.WAV
Once I'd written a bash script which walks through the "CD" folder and sub dirs. It encodes new found files to MP3 and extracts ID3v2 tags from file names. From time to time I delete the mp3 folder and start the script to encode everything again, using a new LAME version or different encoding settings. My MP3 folder mirrors the CD folder structure.
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: BoraBora on 02 January, 2009, 03:56:50 PM
No change since last year :

- MP3
- FLAC
- One file per track
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: nyarlathotep on 02 January, 2009, 04:34:33 PM
Too lazy to change, and no reason to change actually:

- MP3 (Lame V5)
- WavPack
- One file per track

- EAC to rip & encode
- foobar2000 + Lame to encode to MP3
- foobar 2000 and Mp3tag to tag and for files operations
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: Agent69 on 02 January, 2009, 04:38:12 PM

I just finished ripping my entire CD collection, and I decided to go with Wav+Cue for the inital ripping, but I am considering switching to a lossless codec with individual files so that I can take advantage of Replay Gain. The difference in volume from CD to CD can be incredible.

Wav is lossless too and you can also use RG on disc images.


Are you talking about Wavegain? From what I have read on the wiki, it is irreversible, which makes it a non-starter for me.
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: A_Man_Eating_Duck on 02 January, 2009, 04:46:18 PM
if your using WAV+Cue you can use replaygain, the replaygain values are stored in the CUE.
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: Agent69 on 02 January, 2009, 05:29:16 PM
if your using WAV+Cue you can use replaygain, the replaygain values are stored in the CUE.


Any info on this? I can't seem to find anything in the forums or on the wiki.
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: antman on 02 January, 2009, 05:29:47 PM
Flac -5/Lame V5.

I started 2008 the same.  Tried WMA because my phone supported it.  Tried AAC when I got a Zune.  Then went back to MP3.

I think I voted for WMA last year and dropped it shortly after.

I'll doubt I'll play with formats as much this year, but who knows.
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: Nick.C on 02 January, 2009, 05:32:13 PM
Lossless: FLAC, image with embedded cue sheet;
Lossy: (iPAQ) lossyWAV / FLAC --portable, image with embedded cue sheet;
Lossy: (Other) MP3 (LAME V2), file per track.

Ripping: EAC from CD to WAV image & CUE;
Encoding / Tagging: foobar2000 from WAV & cue to FLAC image per disc with embedded cue sheet.
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: A_Man_Eating_Duck on 02 January, 2009, 05:53:12 PM
if your using WAV+Cue you can use replaygain, the replaygain values are stored in the CUE.
Any info on this? I can't seem to find anything in the forums or on the wiki.
If you load a Test WAV+CUE into Foobar2000 and replaygain it, open up the CUE file in notepad and you can see the replaygain values.
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: Agent69 on 02 January, 2009, 06:25:02 PM
If you load a Test WAV+CUE into Foobar2000 and replaygain it, open up the CUE file in notepad and you can see the replaygain values.


Thanks!
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: Martin F. on 02 January, 2009, 08:21:57 PM
FLAC. Also on my DAP (Cowon iAudio X5L, 30 GB) since I’m too lazy to transcode.
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: chrisgeleven on 02 January, 2009, 10:02:35 PM
I had a fling with iTunes AAC for awhile, but with XLD being available on Macs now, I am thinking about going with LAME 3.98 and FLAC.
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: dbAmp on 02 January, 2009, 11:54:45 PM
I use EAC in secure mode to rip WavPack images, one file per disc with cuesheet, for my archive. I then use foobar2000 to convert the WavPack to MP3 (LAME 3.98.2 -V2) for use on the PC/iPod/Streaming to Xbox 360. I have foobar2000 replay-gain scan output as albums during the transcode and use MP3tag to convert the replay-gain values to SoundCheck values for use with iTunes and iPod.

P.S. I switched from 128 VBR iTunes AAC (QT v7.2). I don't think the new iTunes/QT AAC encoder sounds as good as the previous version at bitrates < 192 and I needed the compatibility of MP3. I do miss the small files, as my iPod would sync a lot faster and hold a lot more.

EDIT: I use iTunes to grab album art. If it's not in the iTS, I check Amazon.com. If all else fails, I scan the cover myself.
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: vpa on 03 January, 2009, 03:05:51 AM
WavPack for back up and serious listening. Also for listening on my Cowon A3.

iTunes AAC for background listening with my iMac and filling my iPod.

Lame 3.98 only for uploading my selfmade songs on Last.FM, MySpace & Ning.
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: collector on 03 January, 2009, 06:45:41 AM
Are you talking about Wavegain? From what I have read on the wiki, it is irreversible, which makes it a non-starter for me.

You are right about that, but you mentioned to go lossless (Flac ?). So, with flac images you can apply rg too.
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: user on 03 January, 2009, 06:57:02 AM
Ripper: EAC v 0.9b4
Mode: Secure , test & copy , no c2 usage, to single song/track files

Advantage of single songs:
Easier search and find in your collection, eg. by program Mpeg Audio collection MAC 2.93.1, or comparison of different editions of same/similar albums.

Because EAC appends the gaps to previous track, you don't miss anything in the songs or "gaps", also perfect gapless playing is standard since ages.



EAC + mareo.exe ripping/encoding/tagging in 1 step to 3 formats:



1. Lossless  FLAC -8 -V 
target: Listening in HiFi , living room, archive


2. lossy MPC 1.16 (iic, thats the current version) --quality 8 --ms 15 --xlevel
target: archive backup solution, small size !  nearly perfect quality, great encoding and decoding speeds.

3. lossy MP3 Lame 3.98
(iirc) , -V5 (vbr-new doesn't need to be specified anymore with 3.98 iirc)
target: listening on portable , usb-mp3-stick, or now SD-card-mp3 device with Koss KSC 75 headphones for running outdoors or listening in car.




Why ?

1. FLAC -8 (bitrates around 700 - 1000 kbit/s) HiFi listening purpose, no compromise, the Exact Original CD !
It offers hardware support, think of devices for streaming in the house, from PC/HD to HiFi stereo in living-room. EG. EVA 8000 Netgear hardware and many many others.
FLAC will be built into more and more hardware.
Also: great decoding speed, independent on the encoding compression level.
Still good encoding speed at -8 (8=best compression level), even at P3 @ 800 MHz.

2. MPC -q8 --ms 15: bitrates around 260 - 270 kbit/s small-sized archive backup quality, if you have FLAC Lossless already, but good compromise
A long time reliable fine-tuned lossy format. Good encoding and great decoding speed.

3. MP3 Lame V5  bitrates around 120 - 150 kbit/s for portable listening on running outdoors or in car driving
small size, hardware support in priceworthy supermarket devices !



What matters ?

Clearly commercial priceworthy ubiquitious hardware device support.
So a lot of votes to FLAC and mp3.

Today: 1000 GB HD at 90 - 100 Euro prices, so no question of storage space/place or costs.
Also DVD+R storage is a possibilty and even cheaper.

See www.High-Quality.ch.vu (http://www.High-Quality.ch.vu) for High Quality Audio Archiving Tutorials/guides , I hope to update it soon, if I find time. But those guides already offer  now a lot of pictures and you will get the idea of configuring EAC to FLAC , or foobar 2000 etc.






edit, answer to Martin F:

http://www.damrotech.com/product_info.php?...products_id=315 (http://www.damrotech.com/product_info.php?cPath=4&products_id=315)

100 DVD+R Verbatim at 23,30 Euro , not at 40 like Martin F calculates in his example.
So, there is still a small price advantage for DVD+R than to HD.
Of course, like I wrote, at these times, HD is together with DVD+R a good alternative for storage space.

Martin F's arguments about replaygaining or tagging on DVD+R is  a non-argument imo.

Those are done before burning to DVD+R.
Afterwards I simply listen to music and don't think about replaygain or tags.

Replaygain of Lossless Flac is nice to have made and to get an impression, if the music was mastered too loud/compressed or not, but not necessary, as there is no danger of clipping introduced by lossy encoder.

In fact, you can replaygain Flacced HDCD or DTS-CD , but applying it during playback would destroy the original music, in case of DTS even to annoying noise.





So, again my procedure:


1. 1 CD:  1 step ripping/encoding/tagging by EAC + mareo.exe to 3 formats:

1.1. FLAC
1.2. mpc
1.3. mp3 lame

2. step: multiple album replaygain by foobar 2000:
2.1 After having ripped several CDs, I drop those album directories of FLAC to Foobar2000 and carry out album replaygain for multiple albums.
2.2 After having ripped several CDs, I drop those album directories of mpc to Foobar2000 and carry out album replaygain for multiple albums.

3. Scanning album art
3.1 Album art is scanned by Irfanview in 300 dpi jpg compression 90% (minimum 80% , 95% or even 100% jpg seems like waste of space, so 90% is a good practical high quality thing. Also more than 300 dpi (eg. 600 dpi take 4 x space than 300 dpi scans) seems like waste of space or time, because already at 300 dpi you win bigger album art than included into the original CD ! , a magnification of the texts or pictures !)
The directory of the scans is the FLAC album folder.
3.2 Copying the extra files like EAC logs and album art jpegs from FLAC folder to the mpc album folder.
As mp3 is only for fast food listening during sports running outdoors or in car on SD-card, no album art or small files are copied to mp3 albums, also no replaygain or mp3gain.


4. step: Independent Storage of those albums in 3 formats:
4.1 Burning / Copying several FLAC and/or mpc albums to DVD+R/HD, taking care, NOT to have same album in FLAC AND mpc on SAME DVD+R or other media/HD.
4.2 Burning / Copying mp3 albums on DVD+R / other HD

Result:

1 album is stored on 3 different media, be it 3 different DVD+R or HD.
Of course, due to good long-time stability of optical quality media ! (Tayo Yuden or Verbatim, eg. both priceworthy to buy from Damrotech), I got a safe storage or backup of the album and can forget about the original CD.
Interesting is the bitrate/quality strategy:
1. FLAC 700 - 1000 kbit/s as Exact Original CD
2. mpc q8 --ms 15 at 260 - 270 kbit/s vbr as small sized cheap backup for the original Flacs
3. mp3 lame at V5 at 120 - 150 kbit/s vbr for fast food listening, outdoors, portable 2 GB sd-card, sports or cars.

The addition of space / bitrates is per album smaller than the original waves at 1411 kbit/s !
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: Martin F. on 03 January, 2009, 10:10:16 AM
Today: 1000 GB HD at 90 - 100 Euro prices, so no question of storage space/place or costs.
Also DVD+R storage is a possibilty and even cheaper.


From what I have seen at price comparison sites, the prices are about 40 € for 100 DVDs. Costs per TB: 1000 GB / 4.7 GB * 40 € / 100 ~= 85 €. There are rare exceptions with half the price. Comparing to HDDs with 1 TB for ~73 € or 1.5 TB for ~110 €, I would clearly buy a HDD. HDDs are very fast, quite reliable, small, silent, easy to use and rewritable! So even if you found cheap DVDs for 0,20 €, that advantage is gone if you want to update you tags (e. g. if you forgot to apply replay gain). Also it would be quite a lot of work to copy all files from the 212 DVDs to a HDD, apply replay gain and burn 212 DVDs again (in the worst case only to realise you made a mistake again ). If the files are on a HDD, one could simply let foobar2000 do all the work (album gain per folder, for example).
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: Agent69 on 03 January, 2009, 10:48:20 AM
After considering it, I decided that I didn't want to mess with my cuesheets, so I fired up Cueproc (a wonderful tool) and split my entire collection into individual .wv files during an overnight job. Stats:

236 cue+wavs turned into 2,921 .wv files.
The cue+wavs use 122GB of disk space where the .wv files use 76GB.
Using -x2, it took five hours to create and wvgain all the .wv files.

I'm pretty happy now that I have everything set with RG values. I don't see how I listened without it.
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: indybrett on 03 January, 2009, 01:09:16 PM
FLAC -6 for all home use
LAME V3 for everything on the go
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: Teqnilogik on 03 January, 2009, 03:12:51 PM
I rip to FLAC and then convert those FLAC files to -V2 LAME MP3s for everyday listening.  I then burn the FLACs to DVDs for backup and future conversions.
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: Klyith on 03 January, 2009, 06:14:47 PM
I voted Vorbis (aotuv at q6) & flac here since that's what I rip to now.

I was a Musepack holdout until last year when Audiosurf came out and could play oggs. I've mostly switched over, though I only re-ripped cds when they had stuff that I wanted for audiosurf. So I still have a good amount of musepack around.


I hope ogg support continues to get more universal. It's nice to be able to show people your music without telling them they need to switch to a new music player.
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: IgorC on 03 January, 2009, 07:57:59 PM
Most of HA's members know the reason why they prefer some particular formats. But in real life people even don't know or don't care about alternative formats to MP3.
It wouldn't be an exageration if I think that MP3 userbase is higher than 90% (outside of HA)

Many friends of mine who have iPods and iPhones (even some electonic lovers and geeks, students and already ingeneers of electronic and/or sound ) don't know about AAC and less about its efficiency.
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: Diow on 03 January, 2009, 08:32:42 PM
MP3 (LAME 3.98.2 -V2) for listening on PC. One file per track.
Monkey's Audio (Extra High) for archiving. One file per album + cuesheet.

MP3 will be my choice for "almost transparent" encodings until other codec reach the same compatibility than it. For "medium" [-q0.35] or "streaming" [-q0.2] encodings MP4 without doubt.
Ogg is good but anyway at any quality below q6 it sounds worse than MP3 e MP4 to me, but love how it sounds with "classical" music (that is only 2% of all my music!). Musepack no way, only sounds transparent to me at high bitrates (256~320 kbps). WMA (in all versions) with MP4 on the way are useless.
About Monkey Audio i'm thinking to replace it with Wavpack but how start everything from the begining isn't a short way still with it (something about 200 GB, that compressed with MP3 give me 43 GB).
Keep in mind it's only my opinion...
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: Slipstreem on 03 January, 2009, 10:39:21 PM
Personal opinion or not, OGG sounds of nothing unless you put an audio file inside it. OGG is just the name of the container, not the encoder or encoding. I assume you mean Vorbis.

Cheers, Slipstreem. 
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: hödyr on 03 January, 2009, 11:54:00 PM
I'm using lossless FLAC for rare CDs and audiophile stuff, though I'm really liking TAK and might use it once it's open source.

LAME -V3 for everything else. I don't like the bitrate bloat due to sfb21 issue when using -V2 (especially on rock/metal), plus as listening tests showed -V5 is transparent on most material so -V3 should give a nice safety margin.

I really would like to use AAC, but since there is no good open source implementation there's no way in hell I'm using it, what if Nero some day decides they're stopping the work on their free encoder?
Same goes for Vorbis, although it's open source, if it wasn't for ayoumi we would be stuck with the same encoder for years.

I would probably still be using MPC if there was any significant progress, but ever since Frank Klemm stopped development I had a short time of using Vorbis and then went back to MP3, as the format has just gotten "good enough".
I feel there are a lot of people still caring for MP3 quality and developing LAME, and I don't think this is going to change too soon. With disk space becoming cheaper and cheaper I can't see widespread success of any other lossy format, expect perhaps for AAC.
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: HQ84 on 04 January, 2009, 01:52:17 AM
I really don't know if this is the third time i'm posting! but my ISP is only giving me trouble today!!!   

Oh well, anyway, I believe it's choices have changed a bit for me since last year:
2008 was my OGG Vorbis year. now I'm no longer using Lossy, though I voted for AAC, since i have a Sony Ericsson Walkman Series Mobile phone, so in the rare cases when i actually use it as DAP, i use AAC encoded with Winamp's MP4/aacPlus encoder, too bad Walkman does not support Vorbis

for Lossless though, my fav was Monkey Audio in 2008, encoded @High, but after a few *counted* errors i faced with tagging them, I'm currently using FLAC -6 (v1.2.1) in 90% of the cases (for it's excellent compatibility with everything! should use -8 anyway now!!!), Monkey's Audio 4.01 @High comes second, and third is WavPack 4.50 @-h... I'm also open for any other Lossless encoder, considering TAK as well...

files are ripped and Cue sheets are made with EAC v0.99 prebeta4, it gave no trouble yet, and i always test & copy, CUE sheets are included always with lossless, not included with lossy as they're always transcoded from lossless source, using single file or multiple tracks depending on each single album... no specific reason to use any, just what i feel is fine
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: randal1013 on 04 January, 2009, 04:43:29 AM
AAC for my ipod
WavPack for my library/backup
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: Alexxander on 04 January, 2009, 05:26:05 AM
Most of HA's members know the reason why they prefer some particular formats. But in real life people even don't know or don't care about alternative formats to MP3.
It wouldn't be an exageration if I think that MP3 userbase is higher than 90% (outside of HA)
...

Exactly, I would say 94% mp3, 5% wma and 1% songs bought through iTunes. At least this is my impression of the people surrounding me. The poll results will show >1% usage of formats ogg vorbis and mpc but none of my surrounding people have ever heared of these codecs.
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: DARcode on 04 January, 2009, 06:33:02 AM
I'd like to add that thanks to CorePlayer Mobile (http://www.coreplayer.com/content/view/28/69/) and my Symbian phone (Nokia 6220 classic (http://www.forum.nokia.com/devices/6220_classic) w/ 4 GB microSD card) I'm switching from LAME MP3 to WavPack lossy for portable use too, though still need the former for car stereo playback and when bringing music to parties.

EDIT: Links.
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: Big_Berny on 04 January, 2009, 06:57:11 AM
Most of HA's members know the reason why they prefer some particular formats. But in real life people even don't know or don't care about alternative formats to MP3.
It wouldn't be an exageration if I think that MP3 userbase is higher than 90% (outside of HA)

Many friends of mine who have iPods and iPhones (even some electonic lovers and geeks, students and already ingeneers of electronic and/or sound ) don't know about AAC and less about its efficiency.

As iTunes uses AAC by default, also a lot people use AAC without knowing its advantage. Same thing for WMP-users who didn't change the encoder to MP3 because also WMA plays fine on most devices.
IMHO MP3 usage isn't thaaaat high (not over 90%) in the "real world".
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: man on 04 January, 2009, 08:52:47 AM
Happy new year all.

Lossy for iPods : lame 3.98.2 V5
Lossless for PC : wma Lossless 9.2
One file per track
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: seVen on 04 January, 2009, 09:09:46 AM
I really would like to use AAC, but since there is no good open source implementation there's no way in hell I'm using it, what if Nero some day decides they're stopping the work on their free encoder?


Excuse me... where's the problem here? I don't think what you are saying is a good reason for not using AAC. First, what do you mean saying "no good open source implementation"? An encoder? Since the latest and current version of Nero produce very high quality encodings for me i don't need another and the developers are here hearing us (like Lame MP3 ones) when we find problems updating it. Anyway, most important of all, it is also not the only AAC encoder available, so, even if some day they stop to work on it there are always the others implementations like CT, Apple (free too)...
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: David Nordin on 04 January, 2009, 09:31:18 AM
2001: MP3 - Monkey's audio
2002: Musepack - Monkey's audio
2003: Musepack - Monkey's audio
2004: Musepack - Monkey's audio
2005: Musepack - Monkey's audio
2006: Vorbis - Monkey's audio
2007: AAC - Wavpack
2008: AAC - FLAC
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: melomaniac on 04 January, 2009, 10:21:05 AM
2007: MP3 - FLAC
2008: MP3 - TAK
2009: AAC - TAK

Recently switched from LAME V5.5 to Nero AAC q 0.4 for my iPod and home listening.
And another big TAK supporter.
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: Zarggg on 04 January, 2009, 10:26:31 AM
Lossy: Nero AAC 1.3.3.0 q0.35 (I only ever use lossy for my iPod anymore)
Lossy Fallback: Lame 3.97 V5
Lossless: TAK p2
One file per track
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: hödyr on 04 January, 2009, 11:05:37 AM
Excuse me... where's the problem here? I don't think what you are saying is a good reason for not using AAC. First, what do you mean saying "no good open source implementation"? An encoder? Since the latest and current version of Nero produce very high quality encodings for me i don't need another and the developers are here hearing us (like Lame MP3 ones) when we find problems updating it. Anyway, most important of all, it is also not the only AAC encoder available, so, even if some day they stop to work on it there are always the others implementations like CT, Apple (free too)...

I just don't like a format that *may* be unmaintaned (encoder wise). Sure both Nero and Apple have free high quality encoders available, and it's unlikely that AAC support will be dropped in the near future, *but* if they decide to to so, or stop giving their encoder away for free you're basically stuck with whatever the last version was.
I believe people don't like codecs where no progress is made. Look at MPC, it's basically still good today and if you used it some years ago and it was good enough back then, there's basically no reason to abandon it (expect for hardware support of course), yet still after Frank Klemm stopped working on it the userbase declined dramatically.
I also think Vorbis userbase would be a lot smaller if it wasn't for ayoumi. At least here at hydrogenaudio I think people want a new version every now and then, something to play with, at least I do.

Sure open source encoders don't guarantee an encoder will me maintaned for all time, but at least there's a greater possibility.

I don't think no open source implementation is a strong point against using a format, I personally like the Nero encoder alot and use it for my movies (x264+AAC), but for my music archive, if I have the choice I will choose open over closed source.
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: david e. on 04 January, 2009, 11:30:43 AM
I find it interesting how things settle in favor of FLAC and MP3. I also feel a bit sorry for all the mpc-pioneers :-(. Will keep an eye on TAK...

Anyway... WavPack for backups, transcode to mp3 for my portable.

Am I the only one ripping with foobar??


I don't think no open source implementation is a strong point against using a format [...] but for my music archive, if I have the choice I will choose open over closed source.


Likewise. Anyway, I don't see the point in using anything but lossless codecs for archiving, even for stuff thats not "rare" or "audiophile". If you have a lossless open-source-coded backup, it really doesn't matter which lossy codec you transcode it to.

EDIT: answer to hödyr
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: IgorC on 04 January, 2009, 12:24:50 PM
I don't think no open source implementation is a strong point against using a format, I personally like the Nero encoder alot and use it for my movies (x264+AAC), but for my music archive, if I have the choice I will choose open over closed source.

Nero and Apple do good job around AAC.
I have feelings something like yours especially about x264. That's why I opened this poll to ask people what they think about OS AAC. http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....64214&st=25 (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=64214&st=25)
I think projects like Firefox, x264 and LAME wouldn't be so great without being OS. Even Google understand the importance of OS in their new browser.
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: Big_Berny on 04 January, 2009, 01:42:02 PM
On the other hand also Musepack and Ogg Vorbis are opensource and not heavily developed anymore (besides ayoumi for vorbis). Personally I don't think that it makes such a big difference if it's open source or not - at least if it's well documented (to decode). The problem just is that there aren't a lot people who are able and really want to develope an existing project any further. AFAIK also Mozilla has the problem with decreasing contributors...
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: IgorC on 04 January, 2009, 02:03:17 PM
On the other hand also Musepack and Ogg Vorbis are opensource and not heavily developed anymore (besides ayoumi for vorbis).

Another factor is standards. Vorbis and Musepack aren't standards while MP3 and AAC are.
In few words we can see that MP3 has a bomb mix: Standard and high quality open source encoder LAME.
AAC is standard too, but there is no high quality OS encoder.
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: stinkyj on 04 January, 2009, 02:59:11 PM
I think having an OSS encoder/decoder is awfully important. I want to know that I (as a programmer) can, in the future, rely on published specifications to somehow get my music back. Software rots, and computers wind up in landfills.

That said, I don't know much about WavPack. Why would I use that rather than FLAC?
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: greynol on 04 January, 2009, 03:17:26 PM
Slightly better compression, slightly better encoding efficiency (EDIT: well maybe not, kind of hard to say), and the ability to produce hybrid files (though there's now lossywav).

I don't buy into all this fear people are expressing about closed-source codecs; never have, probably never will.  Funny how every year a new poll comes up, we get the same old arguments.  Sort of like every time Thomas announces something about TAK he gets trolled for it not being open-source.
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: carpman on 04 January, 2009, 04:10:41 PM
I don't buy into all this fear people are expressing about closed-source codecs; never have, probably never will.  Funny how every year a new poll comes up, we get the same old arguments.  Sort of like every time Thomas announces something about TAK he gets trolled for it not being open-source.

Totally agree. I've got loads of TAK and LossyTAK files and if I ever need to it's no big deal to re-encode them to FLAC or some other codec. There simply isn't a problem.

C.
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: Angenial on 04 January, 2009, 05:31:44 PM
I don't buy into all this fear people are expressing about closed-source codecs; never have, probably never will.  Funny how every year a new poll comes up, we get the same old arguments.  Sort of like every time Thomas announces something about TAK he gets trolled for it not being open-source.

I completely understand the annoyance at people whining every time a new version of TAK is released.  It's Thomas's code and he's free to do whatever he likes with it.

However, the "fear" at closed-source is, in my opinion, justifiable; at least for some of us.  If you run Windows, you're probably fine.  However, I don't, and as such I'd be at the mercy of wine to get windows-only programs running.  That's to say nothing of getting them integrated into my media player.  Because programs I use are open source, they are going to have better support for open formats.  It's due to this that I avoid closed formats.

It would be the height of arrogance for me to assume that authors have an obligation to release their code under a license I approve of, and of course I do not feel this way.  But for those of us whose programs are open, it's really not feasible to use closed components.  Not because of ideological reasons (at least, not in my case), but because of the simple fact that I can't use them.

I think one of the reasons that people have a reaction to the "open-source" idea, at least here on HA, is because so many people demand that all code be open.  Such attitudes do nothing to promote open code, and are probably harmful.  But not all of us who prefer open source are of the opinion that everybody needs to provide it.  I suppose we're just not as vocal as those who demand.
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: DonP on 04 January, 2009, 06:09:33 PM
Most of HA's members know the reason why they prefer some particular formats. But in real life people even don't know or don't care about alternative formats to MP3.
It wouldn't be an exageration if I think that MP3 userbase is higher than 90% (outside of HA)

Many friends of mine who have iPods and iPhones (even some electonic lovers and geeks, students and already ingeneers of electronic and/or sound ) don't know about AAC and less about its efficiency.


I think there's a wide variation in how much people care or know.  I know people who use Itunes/Ipod and don't even know that most of their songs aren't mp3.

On the Sansa forums there's a lot of buzz about vorbis.
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: harto69 on 05 January, 2009, 04:50:01 AM
Hi,

MP3 3.98 V3 for DAP and mobile phone
FLAC for archiving and listening on PC
[Ripping with EAC to single file with cuesheet]

Happy new year!
Harald
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: memomai on 05 January, 2009, 05:50:05 AM
Monkey's Audio, one file per CD with cuesheet
MP3, one file per track.
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: Antonski on 05 January, 2009, 10:26:31 AM
MP3 (LAME 3.98.2 -V2) for listening on PC. One file per track.
...
MP3 will be my choice for "almost transparent" encodings until other codec reach the same compatibility than it. For "medium" [-q0.35] or "streaming" [-q0.2] encodings MP4 without doubt.
Ogg is good but anyway at any quality below q6 it sounds worse than MP3 e MP4 to me, but love how it sounds with "classical" music (that is only 2% of all my music!). Musepack no way, only sounds transparent to me at high bitrates (256~320 kbps).


Interesting... What kind of music do you prefer?
I've never supposed that there will be a real music sample that will sound "almost transparent" with Lame V2 (about 190 kbps), worse with Ogg Vorbis below q6 (q5 ~ 160 kbps) and worst (not transparent) with Musepack < 256 kbps ?
Would you upload some 30 sec. sample so I could perform some ABX?
Thanks in advance.
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: Kujibo on 05 January, 2009, 08:19:47 PM
For 2008 I answered FLAC + Vorbis.

I really love Vorbis and want to use it but this year I've picked up a PS3, iPod, iPhone, and an MP3 CD player in the car. So I've switched to MP3 just to keep my sanity. I could have went to AAC but it looks like tagging can be an issue with the PS3 unless it is in the right container/etc and I'm not sure what plays AAC+/HE/whatever etc. It's so much easier to just encode to MP3 and know it will work everywhere without issues.

As the PS3 is my main listening device and set up for quality, I encode with LAME at -V2. It's a bummer wasting that many bits on a lossy format when there are better options like AAC and Vorbis out there, especially when I want to cram music on the iPods or MP3 CDs, but it is the trade off I am making to keep life simple. I sure wish the PS3 could play FLACs natively (I know I can transcode with TVersity, but...), and I really wish its wireless connection wasn't so fragile as I can't play off a media server without it repeatedly dropping and stopping.
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: sidewalking on 05 January, 2009, 11:43:26 PM
WavPack for lossless....Yeah, baby!

LAME V2-V0 for iPod
Vorbis q2-q4 for Rockboxed Sansa 4 GB

Sometimes Musepack because it holds a special place in my heart.  But only on the Sansa or PC, of course...

Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: Cartoon on 06 January, 2009, 09:08:22 AM
FLAC -8 for main archive
LAME -V5 for Rio/PS3
AAC-HE for mobile phone

Using dbPowerAMP Music Converter to convert from my FLAC archive to the lossy formats. Using the Rio less and less, mobile phone has taken over for out-of-home music and the PS3 takes over more and more for music at home... will probably switch to LAME -V2 as the size issue is of less and less importance.
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: GeSomeone on 06 January, 2009, 03:34:32 PM
It is such a good idea to do this yearly (but please move it to the Polls section, with the others)

In the last year I moved to a practical approach, I went mostly with LAME -V 2to1 and FLAC for lossless.
Next to that I also use lossyWav with FLAC as the great compromise, total lossless fills up my diskspace rather quickly. Musepack, WavPack and TAK, however much I like them, are on the backburner now.
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: Leto Atreides II on 06 January, 2009, 07:13:11 PM
My lossy library consists mostly of MPC, but for new encodes I would likely choose Ogg Vorbis today.  Lossless is all FLAC.
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: tev777 on 06 January, 2009, 08:29:23 PM
I've always had a mix of multiple formats, but with the growing number of devices I own I have switched back to MP3 for lossy encoding. I've always wished that Vorbis support would take of on portable devices, but it remains just that, a wish.

For lossless I mainly use FLAC, but since Wavpack has been moved to gstreamer-plugins-base I am becoming a lot more interested in the format. Especially the hybrid mode. I guess I'll have to wait for the 2010 poll to see where I am with that.
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: Dynamic on 06 January, 2009, 08:48:27 PM
I answered, Wavpack, MP3, disc image + CUE sheet.

Though I use lossyWAV frequently, I consider it more as near-lossless and voted MP3 as my lossy choice. If I'm typical of lossyWAV users, it would skew the poll against lossyWAV, though I suspect its user base is small anyway.

In fact, my lossless WV is mainly existing rips, not new ones, mostly image+CUE with Replay Gain data. I chose Wavpack for fast decode speed and good compression. FLAC and TAK are similar in these aspects, and FLAC is well supported and would be easy to switch to in an overnight lossless conversion session. I have no particular loyalty, so long as it can also benefit from lossyWAV.

I barely use true lossless for current CD rips - just for some precious work, especially where I've restored the audio in some way.

PC archive and transcoding source: My new disc image archives are now mostly lossyWV (lossyWAV --standard | wavpack). I use these for PC playback and to transcode for MP3 devices (via fb2k) and consider them practically as good a source as either lossless or wavgain | lossless (with dither but no noise shaping) that was a partial solution to lossless bitrate bloat in over-loud CDs before lossyWAV came along. I'm tending to embed CUE sheets now.

Conventional low-bitrate lossy: MP3 for compatibility. LAME -V5 frequently, sometimes -V3 or -V2 from lossyWV source with Album Gain applied by fb2k before encoding. LAME -V6 for speech. Usually file-per-track for normal listening & shuffle play unless I have a gapless album and prefer to encode as a single file to work around consumer MP3 players' limitations. I'd consider Musepack at -q4 or -q5 for low processor load if I had a phone/PDA with compatible software player or a Rockboxed DAP.

Quiet background music MP3s: Use foobar2000 to transcode to LAME -V5 as single file for a groups of 20-30 tracks from my playlist. For dumb MP3 player/FM/DABradio with SD card slot, I apply Album Gain when encoding, use DSPs to Resample to 44100 Hz (only activates if needed), foo_dsp_vlevel for very necessary Dynamic Range Compression, Advanced Limiter (should do nothing!) and could use Crossfader. Once encoded, typical Album Gain with my settings is near to -6 dB, and I use mp3gain to apply -9.0 dB Constant Gain. This gives finer steps on the dumb SD-card MP3 player, whose volume control is coarse at low levels. I ignore transcoding warnings even where my source files include MP3, AAC, MPC etc., though I choose lossless or lossyWAV source where possible.  I also have a couple of very old MP2 files I can play there or in my car by renaming to MP3 extension without transcoding. Can typically fit about 26 hrs of music on 2GB SD card, and modest bitrate has solved sporadic glitch problem with my old -V2 or equivalent files on that player. Had considered trying MP2 if glitch was related to decoder processing complexity, and in any case I wanted VLevel or other DRC to avoid apparent silences.
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: tev777 on 06 January, 2009, 10:14:11 PM
PC archive and transcoding source: My new disc image archives are now mostly lossyWV (lossyWAV --standard | wavpack).


I am curious. What advantage does lossyWAV + Wavpack have over Wavpack in hybrid mode?
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: Nick.C on 07 January, 2009, 02:51:42 AM
The simplest advantage is that lossyWAV output can be efficiently losslessly encoded using several different lossless encoders (FLAC, WavPack, Tak, WMA Lossless).

Additionally, once processed with lossyWAV, there is no need to re-process when re-coding from one lossless codec to another.
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: halb27 on 07 January, 2009, 03:53:16 AM
...Additionally, once processed with lossyWAV, there is no need to re-process when re-coding from one lossless codec to another.

To me this is the major advantage in a practical sense (next to the even more important advantage of being able to use a lossy variant of FLAC which is supported n several mobile DAPs): being safe for the future because the lossyWAV + lossless codec result can be losslessly transcoded to any lossless codec, while the storage saving feature remains as long as the new lossless codec is lossyWAV-friendly which is true for several codecs right now).

From a more theoretical point of view lossyWAV --standard or better IMO has the better audio-theoretic foundation as the result is controlled by keeping added noise at or below the signal's noise level.
There's no such signal related quality control with wavPack lossy AFAIK. wavPack lossy basically controls the predictor error which is not exactly related to absolute error.
In practice this doesn't mean a lot because wavPack lossy yields great results as well, but it may give a better feeling of safety.
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: Dynamic on 07 January, 2009, 04:03:01 PM
I am curious. What advantage does lossyWAV + Wavpack have over Wavpack in hybrid mode?


I'm personally keen on both reasons. Convertability to other lossless codecs could be great if I get a DAP with native FLAC support. Also the safety and theoretical justification of following the measured noise floor (constant quality or VBR) rather than following a slightly-arbitrary bit-rate/predictor coding length (variable quality ABR or CBR) that one tends to do with wavpack's built-in lossy mode.

In practice both wavpack lossy and lossyWAV + Wavpack provide excellent quality at comparable bitrates, and the bitrate overlap between methods is where wavpack lossy is generally considered transparent. Also, lossyWAV has been pretty well tested for transparency against wavpack lossy problem samples and has no known non-transparencies at standard or portable presets so far. In fact, even lossyWAV portable seems to be a decent source for transcoding to MP3 (someone tested it), so I'm particularly confident in standard mode.

At the moment, I don't have access to decent listening equipment, but I'm confident that lossyWAV standard will meet my needs in the future and will not require re-ripping from the source CDs.
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: Artemis3 on 07 January, 2009, 05:18:57 PM
lame -V5 for portable listening.
flac -8 -Ax2 for archiving.
No cuesheets.
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: /mnt on 07 January, 2009, 05:32:31 PM
Nero AAC 1.3.3.0 -q 0.55 for PC and portable use.
FLAC -5 for ripping and archive backup.

I use foobar2000 for transcoding FLAC ripped from EAC, to m4a or mp3 and then use Mp3tag to add artwork and convert the ReplayGain's album gain info tags to iTunes Soundcheck.
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: Dee! on 09 January, 2009, 12:57:46 AM
Lame VBR mp3 at it's highest quality setting has been my main format for everything for ages, but since hard drives are dirt cheap nowadays I rip all CD's to FLAC quality 8.

I used Musepack for a while but it's a pain in the butt due to lack of compatibility.
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: Synthetic Soul on 09 January, 2009, 02:39:34 PM
... but since hard drives are dirt cheap nowadays I rip all CD's to FLAC quality 8.
Not quality, but compression level.  FLAC only has one quality setting: lossless.

I don't like to be pedantic, but it's worth clarifying for new users who may panic.
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: extremerock on 10 January, 2009, 02:35:45 PM
Ogg q5 for listening on DAP.
TAK version 1.1.0 at p4m for my lossless collection on PC.
One file per disc with cuesheet for ripping.

Glad to see that TAK group have been growing rapidly.

I'm doing some TAK promotion of newly released version 1.1.0 in a forum where I perform as one of webmasters.
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: gorgekko on 10 January, 2009, 06:14:56 PM
MP3 VBR for PC, DAP and car.

FLAC for archival.

I use EAC with LAME to rip and encode.
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: TrueHD on 17 January, 2009, 04:52:06 PM
I use FLAC -8 for archive
Atrac SP(292kbps optical transfer) & LAME v3.98 V5 for Car and Home Stereo.
Portable I use AAC vbr 96kbps.(nero encoder)
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: BigBertrand on 20 January, 2009, 03:35:19 PM
voted for Musepack and WavPack, however TAK looks very interesting, might use it as main lossless sooner or later
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: bb10 on 29 January, 2009, 11:14:58 AM
MP3 V0
Wavpack
One file per track.
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: Mirage2k on 01 February, 2009, 11:49:21 AM
Lossy: MP3 (LAME 3.98.2 set to -V2).  This I use for both home listening streamed from my laptop, and on my portable.

Lossless: Apple Lossless.  This is for archival purposes only, saved to external storage and burned to DVDs.  I don't really have reason why I use Apple Lossless over FLAC, except that my laptop is a Mac and my audio program of choice is iTunes (although I rip with Max), and there may yet come a day when internal storage capacities on laptops will outpace the growth of my lossless collection, and I can finally store it as my main iTunes library.  Until then, I rest easy knowing I can use Max to convert my Apple Lossless collection if necessary.

One file per track in all cases.
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: JeanM on 01 February, 2009, 06:59:15 PM
lossy: OGG q8
lossless: WavPacx hmx3
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: lunkhead on 01 February, 2009, 08:50:58 PM
mp3 lame v3
flac -8
1 file per track

edit: change from v2 to v3
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: EastMushu on 01 February, 2009, 09:17:43 PM
mp3 lame v2
wavpack -x6
1 file per track
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: bwat47 on 09 February, 2009, 09:31:29 PM
I wish I could switch over to ogg over mp3, but my whole library is mp3 and only 1k out of 6k songs I have in lossless.

I rip CD's in flac -8, transcode to v0 for my mp3 library.

I rip with eac in secure mode with test and copy and use foobar and lame 3.98.2 to convert to mp3.
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: Warhawk on 09 February, 2009, 11:09:06 PM
ogg q5 for Samsung P2 and future devices.
Flac 5 for archiving on hard drive.

1 file per song, wish I had gapless...
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: b9AcE on 10 February, 2009, 02:30:54 AM
Musepack (MPC) "--xtreme" (Q6) for my RockBox Sandisk Sansa.
WavPack "-hh -x6" for computer usage and archival.
One track per song, but I keep the cuesheets of course.
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: rohangc on 23 February, 2009, 07:41:55 AM
"Bye bye LAME. It was good knowing you...Hello Ogg Vorbis. Pleased to meet you.".

Sounds silly, I know.  , but I finally gave up the MP3 format for good last weekend, and moved to Ogg Vorbis (aoTuVb5.61, -q 5). Wish I could cancel my previous vote on this poll and vote again...
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: lunkhead on 25 February, 2009, 01:56:21 PM
Next year, can you please replace the third poll, favorite ripping mode, with favorite ripper instead?
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: Bodhi on 25 February, 2009, 03:10:36 PM
"Bye bye LAME. It was good knowing you...Hello Ogg Vorbis. Pleased to meet you.".

Sounds silly, I know.  , but I finally gave up the MP3 format for good last weekend, and moved to Ogg Vorbis (aoTuVb5.61, -q 5). Wish I could cancel my previous vote on this poll and vote again...

Why is that?
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: PHOYO on 25 February, 2009, 03:32:37 PM
"Bye bye LAME. It was good knowing you...Hello Ogg Vorbis. Pleased to meet you.".

Sounds silly, I know.  , but I finally gave up the MP3 format for good last weekend, and moved to Ogg Vorbis (aoTuVb5.61, -q 5). Wish I could cancel my previous vote on this poll and vote again...


I'm sorry to say this, but I think Ogg Vorbis is "dead", although it's more technically advanced than MP3. MP3 and AAC rule now, and in future (about in 10 years) MP3 slowly disappears and AAC will continue ruling.
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: Bodhi on 25 February, 2009, 03:33:59 PM
"Bye bye LAME. It was good knowing you...Hello Ogg Vorbis. Pleased to meet you.".

Sounds silly, I know.  , but I finally gave up the MP3 format for good last weekend, and moved to Ogg Vorbis (aoTuVb5.61, -q 5). Wish I could cancel my previous vote on this poll and vote again...


I'm sorry to say this, but I think Ogg Vorbis is "dead", although it's more technically advanced than MP3. MP3 and AAC rule now, and in future (about in 10 years) MP3 slowly disappears and AAC will continue ruling.

I've read that 10 years ago and I'm still waiting!
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: antman on 25 February, 2009, 04:53:21 PM
Next year's poll should ask how many times did you change your ripping/encoding choice last year?  And was it for quality or hardware compatibility.
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: rohangc on 26 February, 2009, 03:00:23 AM
"Bye bye LAME. It was good knowing you...Hello Ogg Vorbis. Pleased to meet you.".

Sounds silly, I know.  , but I finally gave up the MP3 format for good last weekend, and moved to Ogg Vorbis (aoTuVb5.61, -q 5). Wish I could cancel my previous vote on this poll and vote again...

Why is that?


I just bought a Cowon D2. The device seems to like Ogg Vorbis better than MP3 (they would lead to database corruption problems quite easily). That's why I switched.
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: Skorzeny1 on 26 February, 2009, 04:09:19 AM
mpc for my notebook collection
and TAK for PC.
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: zorba on 26 February, 2009, 01:18:00 PM
I'm enjoying life... well I'm trying

so only one encoding with itunes (mp3 320)

no lossless archive any more, cds are my archives


I used to use mp3 -> mpc -> mpc + ogg -> ape -> flac -> mp3 -> flac -> wavpack hybrid -> wavpack lossy -> mp3 -> aac -> itunes mp3

I erased all lossless.

I just want to listen to the music and forget all extra things.
Well, I'm still sticked to HA.org
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: tefleming on 26 February, 2009, 01:40:37 PM
Lossless: FLAC
Lossy: None
Ripping: EAC or Foobar2000
Playback: Foobar2000
System: Laptop PC / External Drive --> Benchmark DAC1 USB --> Preamp
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: KFal on 06 March, 2009, 03:07:57 AM
FLAC -5 for archiving, PC and streaming to my Squeezebox.
AAC transcoded using dbPowerAmp, Nero AAC 1.3.3.0 -q 0.6 for DAP (iPhone/iPod).
Single files because that make maintenance easier (re-tagging of mostly classical music).

I am not religious about any of the formats. A lossless archive is a must because I never ever want to rip again. After some diversion to WMA and ALAC I have chosen FLAC because its native playback on the Squeezebox and flexible tagging. AAC/Nero was chosen because some cursory testing suggested smaller file sizes for the same quality when compared to MP3/LAME.
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: Obelisk on 06 March, 2009, 04:46:07 AM
I'm no audiophile so MP3 suits me fine and I don't use lossless at all.

The way I rip my classical music CDs isn't shown as a poll option though! Here I combine all the movements for the same work into a single file to prevent my MP3 player fragmenting them on random play. Most CDs produce between two and four MP3 files. 

Not being adept at scripting I need to use three programs:
BonkEnc to rip and merge selected tracks - it was the first one I found that does a half decent job and reports the correct combined duration.
Media Monkey to tag and catalogue the ripped files - I like its cataloguing and mass tagging features
Foobar to produce second versions of the tracks using the VLevel DSP to compress the dynamic ranges for in-car replay - the only way I know of for doing this.

I store the two file versions on an external hard drive for portability. 
     
This route is quite a lot of work, and most of the ID3V2 tags have to be edited to show the composer as the artist etc. I wonder if I it would be worth my while to learn how to write scripts to streamline it? I suspect not.
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: vinnie97 on 07 March, 2009, 02:42:50 AM
Vorbis & FLAC.  Sad to see Vorby losing favor with the userbase here.
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: Releevo on 07 March, 2009, 07:00:20 AM
Library: iTunes + QuickTime AAC 256kbps / LAME 3.9x MP3 VBR
Archieve: FLAC is the first choice
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: stigc on 07 March, 2009, 07:19:00 AM
Vorbis
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: ebat on 07 March, 2009, 07:42:01 AM
DAP: Lame -V5 --vbr-new or NeroAAC -q 0.4
Archive: FLAC -5
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: The Seeker on 07 March, 2009, 07:55:39 AM
Archive: FLAC Level 8 (one file per track).
DAP/Laptop/PC: LAME 3.98.2 -V5
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: WUXGA on 16 March, 2009, 10:47:42 PM
Nero AAC -q 0.5; no lossless for me, my files are backed up to a external HDD.  One file per track.
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: ChronoSphere on 13 April, 2009, 09:01:15 AM
flac -8 for archive, 1 file per CD with embedded cuesheets, scans etc
lame 3.98.2 -V0 for everyday use, combined wth aac -q0.5 for gapless albums (didn't manage to get mp3 to play gapless on my portable players)
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: Frumious B on 15 April, 2009, 10:48:51 PM
I finished my epic 1,700 CD ripping project last week and used ALAC for my lossless files.  I mainly chose ALAC because I wanted to use iTunes to clean up my tags and artwork before backing them up and transcoding to lossy.  For my lossy files I used Nero AAC at quality setting of .45.  I have the lossless files if I ever want to try something else and I'm just going to use them on the iPod anyway.  Prior to that all I had were 128kbps mp3 files that I mostly ripped five years ago.  Going from those files to the new AAC files is like someone removed a towel from my speakers.  I'm very happy with my results so far.
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: ProtoCat on 15 April, 2009, 11:40:36 PM
2002-2007: Musepack -Q6 / FLAC-Multiple Files
2007-2008: aoTuV Vorbis -Q6 / WavPack-Single File
2009: QuickTime TrueVBR Q127 AAC / FLAC-Multiple Files

For the really long boring answer:

I actually do want to say I'm heavily impressed with how far LAME has come and it was a tough choice between AAC and MP3 for me. I've really wanted to be able to send a random track to a friend without worries or have to deal with 'support' for a format being buggy or otherwise sparse. While MP3 easily wins that, I rather like the results I get with regards to file sizes when using AAC which is great for my portables. Support is just prolific enough that I'll take the tradeoff. If I wind up regretting this choice, next year I'll be voting LAME.

So far as cuesheet/single file rips for lossless -- it really appeals to me from an organizational standpoint and more resembles an ISO backup with compression benefits, which might mean nothing to the next person. However, support for FLAC in this flavor has been spotty at best -- and WavPack's audience fell off a cliff. For the sake of no headaches, I'll take the compression hit.
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: Martin H on 26 April, 2009, 03:37:29 PM
For archival i use WavPack images with embedded cuesheets(-hm).
For playback on PC/Portable i use LAME track-files(-V5 --noreplaygain).
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: Trippynet on 27 April, 2009, 11:18:27 AM
Vorbis & FLAC.  Sad to see Vorby losing favor with the userbase here.


It is. I ripped most of my music a while back using Vorbis, but have recently been re-ripping everything to VBR MP3. The main reason simply being that too few MP3 players etc. support Vorbis unfortunately, plus with MP3 I can use MP3Gain to apply ReplayGain to all my music in a manner that even my iPhone will cope with (along with all other MP3 players obviously).

That's always Vorbis's problem. No matter how good or free it is, the likes of Apple, Microsoft etc. will continue to support the bare minimum of formats for their software and hardware players and this leaves Vorbis out in the cold somewhat.
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: KeyLogic on 27 April, 2009, 05:28:32 PM
[Nero] AAC @ highest quality for portable player
FLAC (1.2.1b @ 6) for computer listening and archiving
[EAC] One file per disc with CUE sheet + Log file
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: nycjv321 on 24 August, 2009, 08:58:18 AM
Archive: FLAC Level 5 one file per cd + cue
DAP lame 3.9.2 q4 vbr [winmo] / aac q4/5 vbr encoding [ipoo]
Laptop/PC: vorbis aoTuV q6-8
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: 2E7AH on 24 August, 2009, 09:35:10 AM
It would be slightly better if we could have at least two selections per choice, not just one:
- for lossy I choose MP3, although I use regulary also Vorbis aoTuV
- for lossless I choose FLAC, although I use TAK also
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: halb27 on 24 August, 2009, 09:42:07 AM
It would be slightly better if we could have at least two selections per choice, not just one:
- for lossy I choose MP3, although I use regulary also Vorbis aoTuV
- for lossless I choose FLAC, although I use TAK also

I second that.
For lossy I use mp3 and lossyWAV + FLAC. lossyWAV is my preferred choice, but I had to vote for mp3 as currently I use it more often (due to DAP limitations).
For real lossless purposes I use TAK, but I also use FLAC together with lossyWAV.
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: smz on 24 August, 2009, 10:46:14 AM
MP3 (LAME 3.98.2 -V2) one-file-per-track for listening. ID3v2.3 (UTF-16 encoding) tags.
WavPack (-m -i -q -hh) disc images with embedded cuesheets for archiving.

Plextor Premium and EAC for ripping, Foobar2000 for encoding/tagging, Winamp for everyday listening. Old Creative Zen Micro Photo as DAP.

Cheers!

Sergio
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: Examiner on 24 August, 2009, 12:06:20 PM
- Ogg Vorbis
- Flac
- One file per track
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: muse. on 16 September, 2009, 06:00:29 AM
Archival purposes: FLAC -8 /w cue, single tracks since it's a lot easier to convert on the fly. Cover art and logs of course
Lossy/iPod/general listening: LAME 3.98.2 -V0
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: mata on 22 September, 2009, 03:44:33 AM
AAC
APE
one file per disc.


hmm, so few vote for APE, it is still extremely popular in the east just like realmedia for video
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: GeneV on 12 October, 2009, 09:06:45 AM
For losless I use Flac 8.
As Flac is the most widely supported losless format, to me there is no better choice. My players (foobar, MPC, VLC) support Flac, and even my DAW (Samplitude) does since v10.2, which I highly appreciate  . Moreover, coding is fast and decoding even faster.

For lossy I use mp3, encoded with lame (3.98.2) --abr 192 -q 0 --lowpass 20. (Why ABR and not VBR, see here (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=66649&view=findpost&p=662072)).
The only reason I use losssy at all, is getting small files for my portable players. And any player supports mp3.
I'd much rather use OGG, but unfortunately my portable players do not support it. A much too little number of players actually do  . It's the same old story that manufacturers are too reluctant to implement free standards.

Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: String Theory on 12 October, 2009, 11:53:00 AM
I don't archive my cd's... if a cd breaks, i'll buy a new one. Simple as that. For the rest LAME -V0. In the past I've bought some AAC songs from the iTunes Store, but I prefer to buy cd's and vinyl and rip / download the mp3-versions. AAC sounds promising, but I found LAME MP3 overall better.
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: twostar on 06 January, 2010, 10:01:02 PM
It's time for a new poll for the new year. It's tradition. 
Title: 2009 ripping/encoding general poll
Post by: greynol on 06 January, 2010, 11:43:57 PM
Thanks for pointing that out.

This poll is officially closed.