Hydrogenaudio Forums

Hydrogenaudio Forum => Polls => Topic started by: aabxx on 2005-02-25 02:46:57

Poll
Question: Which lossy is YOUR daddy?
Option 1: MP3 votes: 218
Option 2: Ogg Vorbis votes: 154
Option 3: MP4-AAC votes: 68
Option 4: MPC votes: 146
Option 5: WMA votes: 12
Option 6: Other votes: 6
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: aabxx on 2005-02-25 02:46:57
Been a while since the last one, according to my search, so just curious how the different codecs are doing these days in terms of popularity.

My vote goes to Ogg Vorbis. I will not claim I can hear a difference between a High Quality-MP3 and the newer codecs, but it's nontheless good to know that the latest listening tests have indicated that Ogg Vorbis is still playing at top with the best of them.

So, since most of us don't really hear a difference between the good codecs, at least if we're talking medium bitrates and above, the choice depends on other things than audio quality. For me, the reason to use Vorbis, rather than say MP4, is mostly that Vorbis is free as in both beer and speech. We've been provided this excellent codec for free as a service to the people, by the people, so I make sure to join the good karma. Plus, it's also very easy to both obtain and use, which cannot always be said about the competitors (download and buy nero anyone?).
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: atici on 2005-02-25 02:51:00
My vote will go to MPC for all lossy purposes. But in a few years space will be plenty then I'll use only lossless for audio (lossy for video still). Seriously, in 10 years do you think any of us will care which lossy audio codec is better?
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: shaneh on 2005-02-25 04:25:53
mp3 for me, mostly because it is pervasive and I can easily use it on portable players and know it will be supported. And thats the format most of my music comes in its original form, and I dont want to transcode everything. Plus I cant tell teh different between any of them.

As for not caring about lossy codecs in 10 years, I dont agree at all. There will always be room for lossy codecs. With increased space and bandwidth, people will just be able to store more and download more.

Some people may prefer to download one 2gb album in lossless format, or store a few albums on their ipod, but I think more people would prefer to download 40 albums in the same 2gb bandwidth usage, or store many hundreds of albums in their ipod in a lossy format in which they cant tell the difference.

Porn still comes in lossy jpeg format, even though hardrives are big enough to store lossless .pngs. Theres just a hell of a lot more of it, at higher res etc. The same goes for any media.
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: DreamTactix291 on 2005-02-25 06:06:12
I voted Ogg Vorbis as that's what I use on my iRiver iHP-120 currently.  If and when (looks more like when ) Rockbox gets finished and gives me Musepack support it will be Musepack for my portable from now on.
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: kl33per on 2005-02-25 06:41:10
Can't believe I was the first to vote AAC, where have all the AAC users gone?
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: riggits on 2005-02-25 07:36:59
Quote
Can't believe I was the first to vote AAC, where have all the AAC users gone?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=276873")


[a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0007M610O/qid=1109316413/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/102-8935070-1831352?v=glance&s=electronics&n=507846]Ogg Vorbis just ate my iShuffle fund.[/url]

After an ABX party with Ogg Vorbis 1.1 and the AAC contenders I bought a new MP3 player on the strength of that test.  It Oggs, and I don't miss Nero's AAC encoder at all 
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: Teqnilogik on 2005-02-25 07:45:36
Quote
Can't believe I was the first to vote AAC, where have all the AAC users gone?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=276873"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I used to be an AAC user when I got my iPod but now I've been reripping my collection with EAC and LAME MP3.  The reason for switching is for the most compatibility while achieving high quality.
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: PoisonDan on 2005-02-25 08:19:17
I've used Ogg Vorbis and MPC a lot in the past, but ATM I stick with MP3. Compatible with everything, and good enough for me.
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: AtaqueEG on 2005-02-25 08:20:43
MP3 is still king on my opinion.

If you listen to files on your computer, you either use lossless of MP3, AAC of Ogg Vorbis (the only hardware-supported codecs, I do not count WMA). I have an archive of my files on FLAC DVD-R's (that is until I can afford a 200 or so GB HD). For my computer and portable, on both of which I cannot hear a difference from FLAC I use the cutting-edge version of LAME.

Whenever something else comes along that changes things enough or has hardware support, I will encode to it.

As somebody else said already, will anyone care in 10 years? (I say 3-5 years before we see DAPs/HDs with enough storing space/battery to hold lossless files, then this will be non-important).

I would poll on HOW MANY TIMES HAVE YOU CHANGED CODEC/SETTINGS IN THE LAST TWO YEARS.

I would say most of us have done it two or three times.
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: westgroveg on 2005-02-25 08:20:43
Always have, always will use MPC for archiving but I also now transcode to AAC for use with my iPOD.
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: riggits on 2005-02-25 08:24:02
Quote
I used to be an AAC user when I got my iPod but now I've been reripping my collection with EAC and LAME MP3.  The reason for switching is for the most compatibility while achieving high quality.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=276883")


The time of the floppy disk is finally done; ABS and airbags are standard equipment on new vehicles; [a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?A=details&kw=PHDVP642&is=REG&Q=&O=productlist&sku=339741]MPEG4 plays on inexpensive standalone DVD players[/url].
I think it's time to let go, and not worry about the legacy support so much.  Or maybe it's time to FLAC it all, since we're headed there anyways
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: AtaqueEG on 2005-02-25 08:37:18
Quote
I think it's time to let go, and not worry about the legacy support so much.  Or maybe it's time to FLAC it all, since we're headed there anyways
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=276889"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Word.

(I'm a recent lossless convert BTW, with that insurance, I am willng to try whatever lossy codec comes down the road with hardware support until lossless becomes the standard, it shouldn't be that much)
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: Synthetic Soul on 2005-02-25 09:03:29
MP3 for me.

I've used LAME since I started frequenting HA, but a lot of my MP3s were encoded using Radium @ 128kbps.  My hearing isn't fantastic, so I don't have any problems with ~128kpbs.

I am quite tempted to switch to OGG or AAC, but I have an MP3 CD player in the car, which is where I get to listen to most of my music.  Until I listen to most of my music on something that will play OGG or AAC I don't see the point in a switch.

I now have all my CDs in APE format, so the idea is that I will, sometime soon, get a 250GB external hardrive on which to store them. This will then provide the facility to very easily transcode everything to a lossy format of my choice.

I expect the first run will still be to LAME ~128kbps though.  It will be nice to be shot of some of those early mistakes, like Xing and BladeEnc. 
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: Bylie on 2005-02-25 09:05:59
About two years ago I finally decided to go lossless (FLAC) after spending the years before constantly switching and reripping my collection (and then some) to the latest and greatest lossy format (mp3, ogg, mpc, ...) of the moment. I think it's a learning process most of us go through. At first I was content just having music in mp3 form (xing  ) but gradually I discovered and started to appreciate the recording quality of good cd's and wanted to preserve this as much as possible in it's digital form. Lossless in the end gives me a nice peace of mind that what I'm doing is not for nothing when yet another format becomes popular.

Maybe the story above is a little offtopic here but what it comes down to nowadays is that I have my lossless (constantly growing) archive from which I can generate any file in any lossy format I want. This means whatever the latest and greatest format of the month is I can always give it a try. I still follow the advances made in the lossy formats but I look at it from another point of view : I'm not constantly in search anymore for the ultimate, best commandline or qualitysettings.
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: rjamorim on 2005-02-25 11:47:08
Quote
I've used Ogg Vorbis and MPC a lot in the past, but ATM I stick with MP3. Compatible with everything, and good enough for me.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=276885"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Ditto. I more or less switched from AAC back to MP3 because of my Expanium.
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: smz on 2005-02-25 12:24:52
@Bylie

I subscribe any single word of you.

The only difference is that (after WMA Lossless and FLAC) I've now gone to WavPack for lossless.

Sergio
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: JEN on 2005-02-25 12:41:37
I voted for mp3, because its what I mainly use for portable playback.

Maybe we should have a few different polls (iv included my answers ), e.g.:

1. which lossy codec do you use - mp3
2. which lossy codec would you use if all hardware supported all lossy codecs - aac
3. which lossy codec do you think is the most technically advanced - aac
4. which lossy codec do you think is the codec of the future - aac

a few more come to mind, but I think that will be enough for now
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: jaybeee on 2005-02-25 12:43:08
For portable player compatibilty with less battery draining, mp3 is my weapon of choice.  I do like Ogg Vorbis, but I'd only use it on my portable (lossless on home PC) and it drains too much battery life.

When the rockbox team release their iRiver software, then I'll take a look at mpc (if they support it) and wavpack (for the hybrid).
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: gmB on 2005-02-25 12:46:41
I never used alternative lossy codecs. MP3 all the way. I still use it for sharing music over the internet. But my own CDs are all archived as lossless wavpacks.
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: evereux on 2005-02-25 13:07:15
I've voted for MP3. When hard drive space was more of an issue for me I'd use MPC. I'm gradually making the change to WAVPACK lossless for the majority of my new rips and if I go lossy I'll use MPC, this is very rarely. MP3 I use for my car stereo and so is now my most frequently used lossy codec.
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: [solid] on 2005-02-25 13:08:43
ogg vorbis... for the karma reason mentioned in the first post ^^
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: Bylie on 2005-02-25 13:42:46
Quote
The only difference is that (after WMA Lossless and FLAC) I've now gone to WavPack for lossless.


Ah well some use FLAC, some use WavPack, some even use APE  the beauty of it is that it's lossless and that my music will sound just the same if I converted it to WavPack or whatever format I might get in mind.
I do however notice that there's much less negative conversations between the people using lossless encoders. Sometimes people tend to start flamewars over lossy's encoders quality that are just childish (in the sense of mine is bigger than yours). Lossless avoids the quality issue alltogether and imho lays the emphasis on features. I know some lossless encoders might compress better than others but it isn't such a big a deal to me anymore. I want something that does it's job! FLAC does a splendid job for me and WavPack might do a splendid job for you ...
In the end it's all in function of the music I want to hear.
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: tev777 on 2005-02-25 14:04:22
I'm still a Vorbis user. My reasons are excellent support on Windows & Linux, the ability to convert FLAC directly to Vorbis in terminal and keep my tags, and every player worth downloading has support for vorbisgain.

After so many years of band practice in a tiny warehouse all of the lossy encoders are transparent TO ME at their respective recommended settings (and most times slightly below the recommended settign) so it's the features that decided for me.

That being said, I would only be half-posting if I didn't mention OptimFrogDS which I use for 'special' songs. I'm still not satisfied with WavPack's Linux support.
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: DigitalDictator on 2005-02-25 14:21:41
I use MPC mainly because they don't like people having mp3's on our HDs at work! I have more than 10 Gigs worth of music on my HD at work, all MPC.
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: smz on 2005-02-25 14:22:28
Quote
... the beauty of it is that it's lossless and that my music will sound just the same if I converted it to WavPack or whatever format I might get in mind.[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=276964"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yesss! Music archiving nirvana!   

Quote
Sometimes people tend to start flamewars over lossy's encoders quality that are just childish (in the sense of mine is bigger than yours).
  ghghghghghgh!  ROTFLMBO!

Quote
Lossless avoids the quality issue alltogether and imho lays the emphasis on features.
Absolutely!

Quote
In the end it's all in function of the music I want to hear.
You're a wise man!

Take care, cheers!

Sergio
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: timcupery on 2005-02-25 14:59:21
Quote
I use MPC mainly because they don't like people having mp3's on our HDs at work! I have more than 10 Gigs worth of music on my HD at work, all MPC.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=276971"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


That's hilarious!
Alternately, you could always change all of the file extensions of your mp3 files from to .wav and just play them as a wav-embedded mp3 file.
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: kl33per on 2005-02-25 15:03:44
Quote
Quote
I've used Ogg Vorbis and MPC a lot in the past, but ATM I stick with MP3. Compatible with everything, and good enough for me.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=276885"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Ditto. I more or less switched from AAC back to MP3 because of my Expanium.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=276938"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

What have you done with Roberto???

Roberto would never stop using AAC!

Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: DigitalMan on 2005-02-25 15:12:19
MP3 it is for me - compatible with everything, APS good enough for most of my listening, no DRM silliness, FLAC version backing up everything in case I need it.
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: Josef K. on 2005-02-25 15:37:18
I've voted for vorbis :

- my DAP (M3L) gives me two alternatives: mp3 and vorbis
- I can't ABX vorbis at -q4 mostly (except killer samples), but easily ABX lame at -V4, even -V3 (classical and acoustic jazz music), so it's saving space a lot.
- M3 displays vorbis tags without limitations (not mp3 tags)
- yes, battery life is shorter, but M3L should play 35 hours with 128 kb mp3, so say 20 hours with vorbis isn't that bad.
- maybe I'm still newb in this, but observe progress in vorbis development is still adventure for me and I like it.
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: Polar on 2005-02-25 19:34:34
Quote
Been a while since the last one, according to my search, ...[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=276824")
Erm, no it hasn't, actually
[a href="http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=24678]The August 2004 lossy poll[/url] still hasn't even been admin-closed, appearantly.
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: t.g.deck on 2005-02-25 19:52:17
AAC because I consider my Zen Touch a momentary inconvenience.

Transcoding is so wrong and so fun.
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: Lyx on 2005-02-25 19:53:01
Still MP3. Guaranteed support everywhere, transparent to me at APS. I don't trust vorbis except for narrowband. I may be persuaded to try MPC if it gets more widespread hardware-support - but even when being optimistic this would take at least 3 years. So i will stick to MP3 for quite a while.

Since lossless is growing and slowly getting hardware-support, i'd say that the most probable thing to happen is that i will stay with mp3 for 2-3 more years, and then directly switch to lossless.

- Lyx
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: rjamorim on 2005-02-25 20:08:18
Quote
What have you done with Roberto???
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=276984"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I decided to stop being a stupid and unbearable zealot. It would be great if some people in this forum decided to do the same... 
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: rjamorim on 2005-02-25 20:11:03
Quote
Quote
Been a while since the last one, according to my search, ...[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=276824")
Erm, no it hasn't, actually
[a href="http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=24678]The August 2004 lossy poll[/url] still hasn't even been admin-closed, appearantly.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=277058"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Meh, did you really expect the people to know how to use a search button?

He didn't even provide enough options in his poll.
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: tev777 on 2005-02-25 20:27:10
Quote
I decided to stop being a stupid and unbearable zealot.


Please don't! I've had more than a fistfull of laughs at your I/O.
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: Tang on 2005-02-25 22:44:13
I voted Vorbis even if recently i came back to Lame for my latests encoding (due to my iHP batery decreasing life)
Anyway i wish to use MPC in quite near futur thanks to Rockbox... Even if it will mean reripp most of my AudioCDs... :/
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: riggits on 2005-02-25 23:15:09
Quote
MP3 for me.

I've used LAME since I started frequenting HA, but a lot of my MP3s were encoded using Radium @ 128kbps.  My hearing isn't fantastic, so I don't have any problems with ~128kpbs.

I am quite tempted to switch to OGG or AAC, but I have an MP3 CD player in the car, which is where I get to listen to most of my music.  Until I listen to most of my music on something that will play OGG or AAC I don't see the point in a switch.

I now have all my CDs in APE format, so the idea is that I will, sometime soon, get a 250GB external hardrive on which to store them. This will then provide the facility to very easily transcode everything to a lossy format of my choice.

I expect the first run will still be to LAME ~128kbps though.  It will be nice to be shot of some of those early mistakes, like Xing and BladeEnc. 
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=276907"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


My CD deck indirectly supports Ogg, just plug the YP-MT6 into aux input.  I do foresee official AAC support coming to car audio sooner than Ogg tho... 
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: guruboolez on 2005-02-26 10:16:32
Quote
I've used Ogg Vorbis and MPC a lot in the past, but ATM I stick with MP3. Compatible with everything, and good enough for me.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=276885"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Same thing for me. MPC was my lossy codec of choice, but now I'm using lossless for listening/archiving on my PC, and mp3 for my portable player. That's why I'm currently so interested by LAME development  (3.97alphas).
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: Omion on 2005-02-26 10:58:04
I voted AAC, even though my entire audio collection is in FLAC Matroska. I was about to vote "other" until I remembered that I encode all my video's audio with HE-AAC. It seems to do quite well with voices, even if it's nowhere near the quality I expect from my music collection.

I'm not really worried about compatability because the videos are designed to play back on my computer and my computer only. If I was worried about compatability, I wouldn't encode to VFR anamorphic Matroska files either  (Yes, I am a Matroska lackey... sue me.)
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: Polar on 2005-02-26 12:06:10
Quote
Meh, did you really expect the people to know how to use a search button?[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=277072")
I shouldn't, or so it seems.

Quote
He didn't even provide enough options in his poll.[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=277072"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well, that remains to be seen. If you take a look at how few supporters Atrac, MP3pro, RealAudio and the likes have amongst HA members in [a href="http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=24678]the August 2004 poll[/url], then I'd say the limited choice of AAC/MP3/MPC/Vorbis/WMA only is not entirely unjustifiable, be it for the sake of overview. There's still that other radio button to tick too, if you want or must.
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: rjamorim on 2005-02-26 12:48:56
Quote
Well, that remains to be seen. If you take a look at how few supporters Atrac, MP3pro, RealAudio and the likes have amongst HA members in the August 2004 poll (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=24678), then I'd say the limited choice of AAC/MP3/MPC/Vorbis/WMA only is not entirely unjustifiable, be it for the sake of overview. There's still that other radio button to tick too, if you want or must.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=277235"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Well, he should at least have provided an option "I don't use lossy, I prefer lossless"
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: Polar on 2005-02-26 13:07:34
Quote
Well, he should at least have provided an option "I don't use lossy, I prefer lossless"
I'd advise people with that kind of preference to place a null vote, since this poll seems to be intended as lossy-only.
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: Synthetic Soul on 2005-02-26 13:18:13
It's quite interesting to read about the number of people who have returned to MP3.

Obviously portables have a large part to play in this, however kudos must also go to Gabriel/the LAME team, who seem to have injectected a little more faith in LAME recently.  People would be less inclined to return if LAME wasn't still a serious contender.

I don't pretend to understand the full story, but it seems that only recently has any development been taken seriously in favour of Dibrom's 3.90.3.

I personally use 3.96.1 (-V 5 --athaa-sensitivity 1) in an attempt to support the continuing development, and in the belief that it is at least equal to 3.90.3.  I'm looking forward to future stable releases also (3.97a seems very promising).
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: rjamorim on 2005-02-26 13:23:25
Quote
I personally use 3.96.1 (-V 5 --athaa-sensitivity 1) in an attempt to support the continuing development, and in the belief that it is at least equal to 3.90.3.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=277250"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I completely agree. Another reason I switched to 3.96.1 is that it is much faster than the effete 3.90.3
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: cerberus on 2005-02-26 14:21:05
mp3 lame extreme
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: Busemann on 2005-02-26 20:19:05
I voted AAC, although most of my collection is aps-encoded mp3's.

I switched over with iTunes 4.7 since I can finally trust the quality with that. The main reasons is that it's transparent to my golden ears (although I have pretty good ear-hygiene), it encodes at over 26X, mass tagging is faaast, and all my gear is compatible.
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: Yaztromo on 2005-02-27 00:35:35
Ogg Vorbis Aotuv b2 at Q7.

Because it's free, open and has excellent sound quality for the bitrate.
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: smz on 2005-02-27 01:12:20
This is just a comment of an "amateur" who isn't so much into the technical intricacies of the various codecs (I just struggle to understand something) and my experience is mainly limited to MP3 and various lossless codecs. This is just because I've started archiving music when MP3 (and WHAT MP3!!!  ) was the only option, I'm a bit lazy and I'm quite stuck with my procedures, tools and legacy of archived music. Only since about a year I've decided that it is wise for me to keep at least a lossless copy of my music. Beside this safety procedure, I find LAME MP3 at -aps and neighbours totally transparent for me and thus more than enough quality wise and an insurance in terms of compatibility with current and future hardware and software.

All this given, and assuming similar if not identical qualities between the other codecs (haven't always been said that ABX tests at high quality levels are extremely difficult because of the transparent nature of all codecs?), I'm quite surprised by the results of the poll, so far. What I see is that MP3 still occupy the first position, and this is what I expectd, but I expected that the second an third position would be a tie between AAC because of the widespread support by the iPod and his aura of recognition as a "standard" and OggVorbis for its very much apreciated "free nature".

I was badly wrong: the very second encoder (and almost in a tie with MP3) is by far MPC, which I don't use and don't directly know, but of what I've heard only positive comments from the quality point of view. It is my understanding, anyway, that it is the least (if any at all) hardware supported codec and one for which developement and support only recently resurrected. I thought those factors would had a more important negative impact in its popularity and thought that the "iPod and iTunes factors" would have a more positive impact on AAC.

There is no conclusion in this: just wild, freerunnig thoughts.

Sergio

Edit: nothing important
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: J44xm on 2005-02-27 01:26:12
I'm honestly surprised to find that so many people still use MP3. I switched to Ogg Vorbis months ago. I understand the hardware variables, though, as I'd be pretty reluctant to give up usage of a nice portable player solely to support an improved codec. To be honest, though, that's just what I did: I bought a used MP3 CD Discman several months back, but I've barely used it because I prefer Vorbis. I'm a man of principle to a fault. Still, I hope Vorbis will continue gaining support.

I do think that in within 10 years, lossless will be the standard audio format. We'll have so much space and bandwidth that it simply won't matter. Lossy will be the "other choice." My opinion.
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: smz on 2005-02-27 01:35:01
Quote
I switched to Ogg Vorbis months ago.[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=277402"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


For what reasons, If I dare to ask?

Sergio
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: J44xm on 2005-02-27 02:27:00
Quote
For what reasons, If I dare to ask?
Many of the standard reasons, really: better quality at similar filesizes, being open-source, and being patent-free. And being more likeable in some intangible way. Honestly, I wasn't even really aware of MPC's existence at the time. Do you ask for a reason other than curiosity?
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: smz on 2005-02-27 02:48:14
Quote
Quote
For what reasons, If I dare to ask?
Many of the standard reasons, really: better quality at similar filesizes, being open-source, and being patent-free. And being more likeable in some intangible way. Honestly, I wasn't even really aware of MPC's existence at the time. Do you ask for a reason other than curiosity?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=277417"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Just to throw you a TOS#8 reminder for bold quality related statements!   

Just joking... never mind! 

I understand (and apreciate) your subjective considerations; as I said I think the "freedom factor" is important. I don't use Ogg/Vorbis, but I'm happy and somehow re-assured by its existence. I was asking just to be confirmed that this factor had an important weight in your (and probably most other's Ogg supporters) decision. I can't (and wouldn't) comment on quality. I'm sure it is good enough for most people/applications, wherever/whenever a lossless codec is enough.

Sergio

Edit: unforgivable typo: bald/bold
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: vinnie97 on 2005-02-27 02:53:08
Ogg as well, because it's made for small-capacity flash players!  It maximizes minimal space the best if you don't require transparency (HE-AAC does well in this regard too, but hardware support is minimal itself)
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: singaiya on 2005-02-27 02:58:30
Quote
I do think that in within 10 years, lossless will be the standard audio format. We'll have so much space and bandwidth that it simply won't matter.


IMO, space will always matter to me. I have an 80g Neuros, and already I'm at the limit and I'm not even close to finishing encoding my collection. Not to mention needing capacity for all the great music I'd like to discover in the future.

I'm using mp3, because although the Neuros supports vorbis, there are a couple things that keep me away from it:

1) reported buggy support on the Neuros at Q6 and higher
2) increased processer demand = lower battery life
3) issues (HF boost, reported acoustic/classical sources sounding artificial)  seems less attractive than potential artifacts with LAME -aps IMO
4) based on the threads I read, having a standard setting for transparency seems less clear for vorbis than with mp3. Leading to increased confusion re compiles, switches.

And so far, the non-open status of mp3 has not hindered my listening pleasure at all. The Neuros is trying to adopt MPC support, and if/when that happens I'll probably switch to MPC at that point, but not reencode my previous rips because they're good enough.

I only use Wavpack for rips I've made from rare vinyl-only releases that really need to be preserved.
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: Dologan on 2005-02-27 03:08:37
Space will always matter as long as obsessiveness exists. Why settle with a month of continuous music if you can have a year? Who knows when you will get stranded on a desert island and not be able to get to your computer to load the music you'll want to hear for the next month? (Nevermind the need for recharghing the battery)
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: QuantumKnot on 2005-02-27 04:31:05
Ogg Vorbis for me though I probably have more AAC and mp3s (for my iPod).  But I'm working on Ogg Vorbis so I guess I do Ogg Vorbis too
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: nvivison on 2005-02-27 04:43:05
When I first came to HA I exclusively used Ogg Vorbis at -q3. After experimenting with Musepack and AAC for a while I borrowed my sisters mp3 player for a hospital appointment, then I reripped my music colection to mp3 when I bought my own afterwards (originally I transcoded my collection, I didn't have time to get my cds out before going to hospital).

I now use MP3 aps for most of my music. I still have a couple of rare cds encoded in Vorbis because I lost them when I moved house , I use FLAC with my other rare cds so I don't make that mistake again.
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: chrisgeleven on 2005-02-27 04:48:34
LAME 3.96.1 here, encoding with --alt-preset standard.

The main reason is compatibility (I can play it in iTunes, on my car stereo, and on my portable CD player) and they sound good enough.

I envison in a few years re-ripping to a lossless format, but I don't have the hard drive space (120 GB) nor the backup means (CD-RW drive still) to rip my whole collection.

So in the meantime, I'll stick with the tried and very true method.
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: uart on 2005-02-27 15:03:02
Add another vote for mp3 from me.  I've tried a few other formats and must admit that I really liked Ogg Vorbis, but in the end mp3 is the only format that's compatible with everything that I want to play it on.

Also I found that in order to get encodes that are transparent (for me and my equipment) I needed mp3's that are larger by only about 10% as compared with the best of the other formats I tested. So I switched back to mp3 for better compatibility, and the slightly higher bit rate I need to get the quality level that's suitable for me is really not an issue.

BTW, I'm really glad that Lame is still being developed and tuned. I'm currently encoding with 3.96.1 -V4 and have no problems with the quality at about 165 kbps, though I also have most of my stuff archived in lossless format as well.
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: dobz on 2005-02-27 16:41:06
Primarily i use mareo to create flac -6 which i burn to dvdr and lame 3.96.1 --alt-preset standard which i store on my pc and copy onto my ihp-140, i also have some oggs and mpc's encoded but mpc has no h/w support yet (maybe rockbox soon) and oggs drain my battery more than mp3 at similar quality.

So for now its MP3, untill another format can cover all my bases.
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: mickywicky on 2005-03-01 14:18:34
I second DreamTactix291 on this one. Vorbis because of the H120... Otherwise I'll probably do some serious ABXing of AAC and MPC once Rockbox is useable and supports them both - though I don't think FAAC/FAAD can beat MPC, but we shall see.
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: Zurman on 2005-03-01 15:24:19
mp3 only for me.

Quality is far beyond my listening abilitites at any bitrate > 128 kbps. Its hardware and software support are unchallenged. mp3 is, I think, the only lossy format I'll ever use : I've already switched to lossless for most music on my pc, and mp3 is good enough for portable players.
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: bond on 2005-03-01 16:09:56
after all mp3 seems to strike back

vorbis having more votes than aac? funny to see that happen on HA
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: rjamorim on 2005-03-01 16:27:00
Quote
vorbis having more votes than aac? funny to see that happen on HA
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=278247")


Are you really that surprised?

[a href="http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=24678]http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=24678[/url]
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=2404 (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=2404)

It has always been that way.
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: bond on 2005-03-01 16:37:56
indeed
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: stephanV on 2005-03-01 17:00:06
Basically I'll use what I feel like that day. My setup and hearing is not that great I'm able to really distinguish LAME MP3 from Vorbis, AAC, etc. and its not like my computer blows up when I mix Vorbises (whats the plural of that anyway?) with MP3s in one folder....
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: vitos on 2005-03-01 17:01:07
Codec. That's a hard choice... Because I'm still experimenting with different formats. But I vote for MPC, as it is the format I use for keeping my all CD's on HD since year 2000...
At these days it was the only transparent format with such bitrate/quality ratio for me.

Now I am also encoding to OGG, for portable player usage. About a year ago nothing at 128k could beat OGG for me, and now Lame came pretty close, but still I'm kinda allergic to MP3's preecho and flanging watery sounds (OGG's artifacts sound different).
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: Emanuel on 2005-03-01 17:17:56
Ogg Vorbis, only on my Iriver H-140. If i need lossy on other devices in the future, I get back to my FLAC files and recode.

EDIT: Quality Setting 6. Different compiles, due to the constant developing. Nowadays I go with aoTuV b3 SSE optimised version - sufficient for me and the sound reproduction of my Iriver.
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: Zurman on 2005-03-01 17:43:56
Quote
Quote
vorbis having more votes than aac? funny to see that happen on HA
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=278247")


Are you really that surprised?

[a href="http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=24678]http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=24678[/url]
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=2404 (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=2404)

It has always been that way.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=278251"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
According to those previous polls, mp3 is more popular than before... But is it also the case out of HA?

wma hardly gets 1-2% here, though I wouldn't be surprised if it got 30% among "basic" users
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: jamesbaud on 2005-03-01 18:04:28
I started out with Fhg MP3, then WMA, then OGG, then to LAME MP3. (For maximum compatibility)

I'd like to use OGG more, but Vorbis development has been lacking. I'd like to use AAC, but lack of VBR in iTunes AAC turns me off. (I know Nero AAC has VBR support, but iTunes did slightly better in the last test). So it's LAME 3.96.1 for me!
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: J44xm on 2005-03-01 18:20:11
Quote
I'd like to use OGG more, but Vorbis development has been lacking. [...] So it's LAME 3.96.1 for me!
Is MP3 still being developed?
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: Lyx on 2005-03-01 18:24:05
Quote
Quote
I'd like to use OGG more, but Vorbis development has been lacking. [...] So it's LAME 3.96.1 for me!
Is MP3 still being developed?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=278288"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Do a forum search and make yourself familiar with a community (by reading-only for a while) before posting.

- Lyx
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: kwanbis on 2005-03-01 18:28:23
Quote
Quote
I'd like to use OGG more, but Vorbis development has been lacking. [...] So it's LAME 3.96.1 for me!
Is MP3 still being developed?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
(http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=278288")

very much: [a href="http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=290]http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=290[/url]

and lame4 is comming
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: Zurman on 2005-03-01 18:29:22
Quote
Quote
Quote
I'd like to use OGG more, but Vorbis development has been lacking. [...] So it's LAME 3.96.1 for me!
Is MP3 still being developed?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=278288"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Do a forum search and make yourself familiar with a community (by reading-only for a while) before posting.

- Lyx
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=278290"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
@ J44xm : means yes
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: J44xm on 2005-03-01 18:39:00
Quote
@ J44xm : means yes
LOL. Thanks, Zurman. But I will make myself more familiar with the forum, as suggested.
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: kwanbis on 2005-03-01 19:09:07
here (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=31255) is the latest 3.9x testin thread
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: khiloa on 2005-03-02 01:06:54
I'm suprised that Vorbis only has 21%. Oh well, its what I use for my lossy needs.
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: assassin on 2005-03-02 18:29:31
I like to use only ogg and flac on my Karma. So when people ask "how many mp3s you got on that thing?",  I can reply "none, just flac and ogg."
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: moozooh on 2005-03-02 20:25:16
Quote
2. which lossy codec would you use if all hardware supported all lossy codecs - aac
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=276948"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Why not MPC? Just curious.
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: JEN on 2005-03-02 21:54:17
Quote
Quote
2. which lossy codec would you use if all hardware supported all lossy codecs - aac
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=276948"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Why not MPC? Just curious.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=278644"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Personal preference I guess. 

Plus I have positive placebo effects with aac and negative placebo effects with mpc.  Don’t ask me why, because I don’t know why.

either way, because of placebo, aac sounds much better "to my ears" then mpc! 

Maybe its got something to do with how cool the extension .mp4 looks LOL!!!
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: atici on 2005-03-02 22:04:54
Quote
Why not MPC? Just curious.

You can't seek for logic in lossy codec zealotry  Even if XYZ proved to be higher quality I'd be using MPC. 

BTW wasn't MPC #1 the last time? It's interesting it can't make it to the top spot in HA community, full of people that knows what is good.  Maybe we need a table showing the change in HA figures for every poll compared to earlier ones.

Nice avatar by the way. Évariste Galois was one of the missing geniuses represented as avatar in HA community. Alexander Grothendieck is another one who I'd like to see as an avatar.
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: khiloa on 2005-03-02 23:17:52
Quote
Even if XYZ proved to be higher quality I'd be using MPC.

hehe.. I do not really, per say, feel that way about vorbis; if another format came along and it was open source like vorbis and flac I'd try it.

ok thats some wierd grammar.. whatever
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: atici on 2005-03-02 23:21:15
Quote
hehe.. I do not really, per say, feel that way about vorbis; if another format came along and it was open source like vorbis and flac I'd try it.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=278712")

MPC is open source: See [a href="http://www.musepack.net/]Musepack.net[/url]
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: QuantumKnot on 2005-03-02 23:59:36
Quote
I'd like to use OGG more, but Vorbis development has been lacking.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=278284"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Compared to a few years ago, Vorbis development has picked up quite a bit, esp. how it managed to climb the rankings in the 128 kbps listening tests.
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: rjamorim on 2005-03-03 01:54:33
Quote
MPC is open source: See Musepack.net (http://www.musepack.net/)
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=278714"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


So is LAME, FAAC and so on.

Being open source is hardly a selling point to any format.
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: schonenberg on 2005-03-03 02:14:26
Quote
Quote
I used to be an AAC user when I got my iPod but now I've been reripping my collection with EAC and LAME MP3.  The reason for switching is for the most compatibility while achieving high quality.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=276883")


The time of the floppy disk is finally done; ABS and airbags are standard equipment on new vehicles; [a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?A=details&kw=PHDVP642&is=REG&Q=&O=productlist&sku=339741]MPEG4 plays on inexpensive standalone DVD players[/url].
I think it's time to let go, and not worry about the legacy support so much.  Or maybe it's time to FLAC it all, since we're headed there anyways
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=276889"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Disc Playback Formats      
Video     DVD, DVD+R/RW, DVD-R/-RW, VCD, SVCD, MPEG-4, DivX 3.11/4.x/5.x
Audio     CD, CD-R/RW, MP3-CD (-256 kbps)  <<<<< Where's the MPEG4 Audio playback?
I wonder if the MPEG4 video player would just the AAC audio stream, since it has to support AAC.

Maybe there is a way to create a blank MPEG4 video track at a very low bitrate?
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: schonenberg on 2005-03-03 02:35:12
Quote
Quote
I use MPC mainly because they don't like people having mp3's on our HDs at work! I have more than 10 Gigs worth of music on my HD at work, all MPC.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=276971"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


That's hilarious!
Alternately, you could always change all of the file extensions of your mp3 files from to .wav and just play them as a wav-embedded mp3 file.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=276983"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Winamp supports user defined extension in its mp3 input plugin too!
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: schonenberg on 2005-03-03 02:45:28
Quote
I voted Vorbis even if recently i came back to Lame for my latests encoding (due to my iHP batery decreasing life)
Anyway i wish to use MPC in quite near futur thanks to Rockbox... Even if it will mean reripp most of my AudioCDs... :/
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=277116"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


The wonderful thing about reripping to mpc is it's encoding speed makes it a magnitude less painful than Lame 3.90.3. Instead of ripping 5 albums a day I can rip about 10.
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: smz on 2005-03-03 02:55:10
Quote
The wonderful thing about reripping to mpc is it's encoding speed makes it a magnitude less painful than Lame 3.90.3. Instead of ripping 5 albums a day I can rip about 10.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=278756"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Ever tried 3.96.1? And maybe even -V 2 --vbr-new ?
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: moozooh on 2005-03-03 18:18:45
Quote
It's interesting it can't make it to the top spot in HA community, full of people that knows what is good
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=278681"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I've got the same thought. May it be because of increasing popularity of lossless formats (due to the grow of HDD space) in cost of HQ lossy ones?
Mp3 just can't be unpopular as long as 1) it's heavily developed and tested, 2) it's the only format that every mp3 player can handle.

Quote
Nice avatar by the way. Évariste Galois was one of the missing geniuses represented as avatar in HA community
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=278681"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yeah thanks.  Really, I just totally adore the uglyness of his face, lol!

[span style='font-size:9pt;line-height:100%']Edit: gr.[/span]
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: JEN on 2005-03-03 21:42:48
Quote
Mp3 just can't be unpopular as long as 1) it's heavily developed and tested, 2) it's the only format that every mp3 player can handle.


If mp3 players couldn't handle mp3 files, they wouldn't be called mp3 players then would they

I think they call them mp3 players for a reason!

(NO OFFENSE MENT - JUST COULDNT HELP MYSELF)
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: 2xG on 2005-03-04 02:26:10
Mp3 for me - mainly cause its the only thing handled by my mp3 player

also - is there that much difference really? I definately cant tell the difference between any of them


first HA post!
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: moozooh on 2005-03-04 10:44:36
Quote
If mp3 players couldn't handle mp3 files, they wouldn't be called mp3 players then would they

I think they call them mp3 players for a reason!
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=279026"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

LOL Yes I knew that, just used a not-so-correct word construction. 
Anyway, you DID get my point, didn't you?
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: JEN on 2005-03-04 19:55:36
Quote
Anyway, you DID get my point, didn't you?


Yes I got the point you were making! 
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: Turing on 2005-03-05 10:08:16
Quote
Quote
I personally use 3.96.1 (-V 5 --athaa-sensitivity 1) in an attempt to support the continuing development, and in the belief that it is at least equal to 3.90.3.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=277250"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I completely agree. Another reason I switched to 3.96.1 is that it is much faster than the effete 3.90.3
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=277251"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


The fact that 3.96.1 is recommended by the developers must also be taken into consideration.  By the way, I just use --preset standard to keep it simple.

As you know I found that the two version of LAME were mathematicaly indistinguishable in my article that got me in so much trouble.  BUT this was true only at the higher quality settings (standard and extreme).  So if someone still wants to use VBR 128 they should try 3.90.3 IMHO.  Always test for yourself kids, never take anyone's recomendation on blind faith.

Since I don't care about lower settings, I will stick with 3.96.1 until 3.97 comes out.  Then I will test it with listening tests and with my correlation program to make sure it has not regressed.

In response to Synthetic Soul, the fact that portable players all support mp3 is a serious practical consideration.  However, if I thought Ogg (or MPC, AAC, or ...) was better I would make the effort to use it (hacks are even available for iPods to play Ogg Vorbis).  Right now Ogg is very close IMHO.  However, to get comparable results you have to accept slightly less compression with Ogg compared to LAME.

As a fan of open source, I will keep rooting for Ogg.  Considering that it started later and has fewer people working on the code, it has come a LONG way.  It may still win in the end

One last thought: I wish I had ripped my CD collection to FLAC as several people have mentioned.  What an idiot I was!  This would make switching to Ogg or whatever comes next soooo much easier.  I guess I have another weekend project.
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: Turing on 2005-03-05 10:24:35
Quote
I'm honestly surprised to find that so many people still use MP3. I switched to Ogg Vorbis months ago. I understand the hardware variables, though, as I'd be pretty reluctant to give up usage of a nice portable player solely to support an improved codec. To be honest, though, that's just what I did: I bought a used MP3 CD Discman several months back, but I've barely used it because I prefer Vorbis. I'm a man of principle to a fault. Still, I hope Vorbis will continue gaining support.

I do think that in within 10 years, lossless will be the standard audio format. We'll have so much space and bandwidth that it simply won't matter. Lossy will be the "other choice." My opinion.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=277402"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


See my response to rjamorim with my thoughts about why I still use MP3.  I really like Ogg Vorbis too.

I have to disagree with your prediction about lossless.  I think it will grow in popularity, but I can store at least 3 times as much music with LAME --present standard vs. any lossless I have tried.  Even though terabyte hard drives are just around the corner, there are other considerations:

1. When you do your regular system backups it will go 3 times faster.
2. When you download to your player it will go 3 times faster.
3. If you stream over the internet it will be probably even faster because you can compromise on quality.
4. I don't support file sharing, but people will continue to do it and this will still encourage lossy codecs.

Remember that lossy is a relative term.  I can not tell Ogg Vorbis -q 7 apart from lossless with my ears.  Why should I throw away disk space when I don't have to?

That being said, I still plan on making a master backup up my CD's using FLAC.  This will keep my CD's backed up and support any kind of technology I might switch to later (e.g. Ogg).
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: J44xm on 2005-03-05 17:26:40
Well said, Turing. I was rather brash in my other post there. I do think that lossless probably will become much more popular over the years, and might one day become more popular than lossy, given huge unknown technological advances in the next decade or three, but your considerations are good ones. Thanks for the feedback. It will undoubtedly be interesting to see where we end up in 30 years.
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: Brother John on 2005-03-13 23:02:27
Shame there is no »all except WMA« option.

My answer depends heavily on what exactly is meant by the question. I listen a lot to MP3s because that’s how I encoded my CD collection a long time ago. New music becomes mainly Vorbis (voted for that), though lately I’m more and more attracted to MPC. For movie backups, however, I only use HE-AAC or the unprocessed AC3.

Why not AAC for music? Dunno. Somehow AAC doesn’t have the feel of a »transparent quality music backup format«. I know that’s wrong and I tried encoding music to AAC. Well, a few days later I re-encoded everything to Vorbis, though I could never ABX either one.
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: schonenberg on 2005-03-18 15:10:30
Quote
Quote
The wonderful thing about reripping to mpc is it's encoding speed makes it a magnitude less painful than Lame 3.90.3. Instead of ripping 5 albums a day I can rip about 10.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=278756"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Ever tried 3.96.1? And maybe even -V 2 --vbr-new ?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=278759"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


No.

I use MPC at standard for computer playback. I can reencode these to mp3 when I get a portable music player.
I encode classical and jazz at xtreme, just to be safe.
My cheap Apex dvd player plays back mp3, but I never use it for that.

I might just get an iriver and use the Rockbox firmware which will supports MPC.
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: VCSkier on 2005-03-31 03:27:01
i still (gladly) use mp3 for my lossy purposes.  i am very happy with it.  it just amazes me what lame has done for mp3.  nevertheless, i would love to switch to ogg or mpc, if it wasnt for the popularity of wmp and itunes, and their limited support.  you see, i love to share my music w/ friends, just to let them try stuff out, and see what they might like, and 90% of the people i know either use wmp or itunes.  its very unfortunate, because i want other people to be able to listen to my music w/o me having to transcode.

oh well, i guess all i can do in the meantime is try to convert my friends to more versitile player, and hope that the proprietary "jukeboxes" will become more versitile (i doubt it tho).  until then, im very happy w/ mp3.
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: Cool Dog on 2005-04-20 05:11:53
I am glad with Vorbis 1.1RC1 in Q6.. good quality and excellent sound.
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: CyberInferno on 2005-04-20 11:36:24
Quote
Seriously, in 10 years do you think any of us will care which lossy audio codec is better?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=276826"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes, I think in 10 years we will still use lossy audio codecs. The reasoning being that we'll probably be using some other media other than CD. Either DVD-A or another competitor. Consequently, ripping an uncompressed source will be a lot larger than ripping your standard CDs. I think we will all use lossless for whatever CDs we own, and probably a lossy codec for whatever new standard comes out (lossy equating to probably FLAC size or so). Just my guess, though.
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: audioprotein on 2005-08-03 20:20:49
I believe that lossy encoding will still be relevant in the future, even when storage becomes so cheap and copious that file sizes are of no concern. The reason for its future relevancy will be due to the need to get as many songs as possible on a cd or player (in whichever format). Even when every car becomes blue-tooth enabled or dvd-r playable, etc. and every player can store gigs of data; small file sizes will still be desirable. People always want the most for the least. When our players can hold a billion songs using lossless compression, many will still choose lossy files in order to hold 10 billion songs- even if they don't have half that number in their collections!!!

Quote
My vote will go to MPC for all lossy purposes. But in a few years space will be plenty then I'll use only lossless for audio (lossy for video still). Seriously, in 10 years do you think any of us will care which lossy audio codec is better?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=276826"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: singaiya on 2005-08-03 21:19:43
Agreed completely Audioprotein. Besides, what's the point in going lossless when most probably can't even ABX cbr 160?

edit: except of course for archiving rare and irreplaceable masters.
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: sdexp on 2005-08-08 19:52:26
It doesn't seem like lossy codecs are ever going to leave the playing field, so why not stick with one which it bound to be kept open like OGG?
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: smz on 2005-08-09 03:42:05
Quote
Agreed completely Audioprotein. Besides, what's the point in going lossless when most probably can't even ABX cbr 160?

edit: except of course for archiving rare and irreplaceable masters.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=317692"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


The point, for me, is being able to recode my music to the lossy-codec-of-the-day (the one with less artifacts, or the more efficient, or the one that is better supported by my DAP) without any "generation loss".

Sergio
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: smz on 2005-08-09 03:43:45
Quote
It doesn't seem like lossy codecs are ever going to leave the playing field, so why not stick with one which it bound to be kept open like OGG?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=318644"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


It doesn't seem like lossy codecs are ever going to leave the playing field, so why not stick with one which it bound to be kept, like MP3?
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: Busemann on 2005-08-09 13:44:59
Quote
It doesn't seem like lossy codecs are ever going to leave the playing field, so why not stick with one which it bound to be kept open like OGG?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=318644"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


AFAIK, WMA is the only proprietary lossy codec around.
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: HbG on 2005-08-09 15:28:58
Then there's ATRAC, VQF. Not sure about MP3 Pro.
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: dirkvl on 2005-08-09 18:44:04
At the moment, everything I archive goes to ogg, at qval 7. If I need mp3, wma of aac, I reencode with Dbpoweramp. MP3ENC (under Dbpoweramp) is my favorite for swiftly putting things on an mp3-stick now. OGG Lancer build is my favorite for archiving.
Many thanks to Spoon for his great soft !

Dirk.
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: heavymetalwiseone on 2005-08-09 18:56:07
I use mp3. The reason is because I cannot hear any difference to other formats, is supported by my portable and 'cause it is the most well-known format.
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: Involarius on 2005-10-09 11:08:56
For now: Vorbis at quality 6 (nominal bitrate of 192 kbit/s) for all my songs.

In the past I did MP3 at 128 kbit/s just like everyone else back then. But it started to sound like crap as I got better headphones, and when I tried out a Linux LiveCD I found it wouldn't play MP3s (because of the patent licensing problem), so I got out every master CD I could and recoded to Vorbis. I still code MP3 (with LAME --alt-preset standard) for use in hardware players, such as my dad's car player.

In the future, when I get a bigger hard drive, I'll leave lossy altogether. I already use lossless for archives and for a select few songs.
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: encosion on 2005-11-04 01:41:13
Surely the results of this poll depend entirely on usage... I maintain a FLAC collection... For playback on my home PC, I naturally playback the FLAC files...

For portable use however I tried OGG -Q6/7 (A Garf Tuned variety) on my old Neuros 80Gb DAP, but had inconsistant playback results - skipping, etc, so ended up switching to MP3 LAME -APX...

However, now that my Neuros is dead (For the second / third time!), and I'm about to obtain my 5G 60Gb iPod - I'll vote for AAC...

The point being, you choose a lossy codec according to your needs first and foremost... Sure I'd prefer to use MPC over all other lossy codecs... But without hardware support, I find it completely redundant... If I'm PC-bound, why play an MPC file when you can simply play the lossless version instead? Then again, with well over 400Gb of FLAC files (and continually growing), I guess space can still be an issue...
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: vinnie97 on 2005-11-04 07:27:18
Quote
Sure I'd prefer to use MPC over all other lossy codecs...

There's little reason for this attitude anymore...the other formats have caught up and, in some cases (ie. ogg vorbis), surpassed the quality of that found in mpc in the mid bitrate range at least.
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: xequence on 2005-11-30 23:32:45
My music collection is in MP3. Most of it is alt preset standard, though a portion of it is in 320 Kbps CBR.

Simply put, MP3 is compatable with just about everything. OGG is probably better quality but it doesent work with my sony MP3 player and anyway I only have a couple CDs to rip.
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: ameyer17 on 2005-12-01 17:19:53
I use both ogg vorbis and mp3 as I have a portable player that does ogg and a couple that don't.
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: seezar on 2005-12-10 20:46:27
For the past couple of years I've used MPC and have been happy with it. In the past couple months I've been using an XBOX with XBMC and was happy to see it supported MPC.

I've since reripped my collection to MP3 though because it offers the most compatibility and my girlfriend uses a portable player.

I've been pretty happy with LAME 3.97b2 so I've ditched my MPC collection in favor of MP3.
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: weirving on 2006-01-05 02:19:13
AAC is my sentimental favorite, but dang me, I still use MP3. I rip with EAC to a FLAC image with cue sheet. I use the FLACs for playback at home through my good audio system. For portable use, I then rip again with EAC/LAME to MP3, individual tracks, constant bitrate, 320 kb/s. For now, with the moldy old MP3 format, at least I know that my rips can be played on the iPod or on anything else on the market.

That being said, on some fine day...

Someone else will market a portable player that is as well designed, as usable, and as plain cool, as the Apple iPod line.

Apple will add support for gapless ripping and playback of AAC to both iTunes and the iPod.

Apple will quit shoving the proprietary Apple Lossless format (that absolutely nobody but them will ever support - even if Apple would let them) down our throats and support FLAC instead.

Apple will, in lieu of or in addition to, gapless support, add support for cue sheets to iTunes and the iPod.

THEN, I will switch to AAC. But by then, we might have antigravity, hyperdrive, and cars that run 100 miles per pound of bull****, of which supplies are abundant, infintely renewable and supplied free of charge by the U.S. government.
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: fearan on 2006-01-07 20:59:08
Ogg Vorbis all the way!
It doesn't low-pass as badly as the other codecs, and it's constantly improving through the work of the open-source community.  There are no license restrictions, and in my opinion, it sounds the best of any lossy codec out there.  I encode at Q4, or ~~128kbps, which is a lot better in Vorbis than it is in MP3.  It is a superb codec!
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: gameplaya15143 on 2006-01-08 20:54:31
Ogg Vorbis here
all encoded with -q 0 --advanced-encode-option lowpass_frequency=999
the majority of which was done with oggenc 1.0.1 (and about half of that majority transcoded from mp3, too lazy to re-rip the cds  , newer stuff is encoded with the latest lancer  )
with an average bitrate of ~68kbps, i save quite a bit of space on my little 40gb hdd.

  after using vorbis.. i can never go back to mp3
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: pepoluan on 2006-01-09 01:29:32
Vorbis -q 2 for most songs. GSPlayer on my PDA plays .ogg beautifully  Most of them transcoded from MP3 128kbps CBR 

Vorbis -q 4 for classical music (mostly guitar pieces -- my brother's collection). Most of them transcoded from MP3 192 kbps CBR.

FLAC if I don't own the CD  then to Vorbis -q 2 to fit the smallish CF of my PDA.

Oh and I use Lancer 20051217 tools & DLLs. 

Been experimenting with lower -q values for transcoding  can't believe my ears... reports to come in listening test section...
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: jorsol on 2006-01-23 23:01:39
I have been using Ogg Vorbis since the 1.0 release, I was pretty amazed with the quality (I still remember the metallic sound at 64kbps but way better than MP3), that in fact I start using -q 2 (96kbps) for all my rips, for me and my ears only (so no TOS8 violation here) 96kbps was even better than MP3 at 128kbps CBR (that was the standard de facto in that time). In my lastest rips I use -q 4 (128kbps) using AoTuV for the best relation quality-space (and based on the listening tests that show Ogg Vorbis like the best at 128kbps).
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: vinnie97 on 2006-01-24 09:26:44
quite the amazing results as of late with Vorbis destined to snatch second place (1 vote away) from MPC.
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: Acid8000 on 2006-01-24 10:39:27
Go go Musepack!
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: SebastianG on 2006-01-24 11:09:18
Even though I got 200 GB of HD storage space I still don't make use of any lossless codecs at all. MP3 (160 kbps-ish and above) / Vorbis (-q4) is fine to me and plays on my iRiver H120.

Although... from a technical/format point of view I'm more in favour of AAC. AAC-Killer arguments for me are: lack of good hardware support and lack of good (free) encoders that don't come bundled with something like iTunes 

Musepack ? No thanks.

Sebi
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: pepoluan on 2006-01-24 11:13:02
Quote
quite the amazing results as of late with Vorbis destined to snatch second place (1 vote away) from MPC.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=359360"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Now, it's tied 

(gee I've been visiting here and keeps forgetting to vote)
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: guruboolez on 2006-01-24 16:08:20
This poll was started on Feb 25 2005, 03:46 AM. I wonder if it wouldn't be a good idea to close it on Feb 25 2006, and start a new one, which will be open for one year only. That way, we could analyse the overall behaviour of HA members/readers.
There are currently three polls on the same subject (the current one, and this one (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=2404) plus this one.
Behaviour are slwoly changing.

AAC: 5.60% -> 11.14% -> 10.99%
MPC: 29.60% -> 28.45% -> 25.18%
Vorbis: 24.85% -> 20.38% -> 25.89%
MP3: 32.32% -> 28.01% -> 35.46%

MP3 isn't dying at all (first poll was started in 2002). AAC has progressed, but is currently not well represented in the polls (it might quickly change). MPC is still popular, but is progressively loosing users. (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=24678)
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: jorsol on 2006-01-24 21:18:20
I agree with you guruboolez. And we must reach at least 1000 votes, that would said more exactly the behaviour of HA members/readers.

my proposal is to add lossless to the poll, yes this is a lossy poll, but will be nice how many people are using only lossless codecs. 
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: vinnie97 on 2006-01-26 06:28:43
Quote
Quote
quite the amazing results as of late with Vorbis destined to snatch second place (1 vote away) from MPC.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=359360"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Now, it's tied 

(gee I've been visiting here and keeps forgetting to vote)
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=359373"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Great use of a vote...and now it's surpassed MPC, finally! 

I agree with Guru and think a new poll definitely makes sense...because people (and codecs) change.

AAC doesn't excite me one bit...so much hype, so little delivery (with the exception of 64 kbps and below).
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: iNsuRRecTiON on 2006-01-31 01:55:54
Quote
Quote
Quote
quite the amazing results as of late with Vorbis destined to snatch second place (1 vote away) from MPC.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=359360"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Now, it's tied 

(gee I've been visiting here and keeps forgetting to vote)
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=359373"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Great use of a vote...and now it's surpassed MPC, finally! 

I agree with Guru and think a new poll definitely makes sense...because people (and codecs) change.

AAC doesn't excite me one bit...so much hype, so little delivery (with the exception of 64 kbps and below).
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=359836"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Hey,

so you have to do 2 votes, one for high bitrate and transparent/audiophile usage and one for ultra mobile, streaming, etc. low bitrate usage..

I think that MP3 (Lame 3.97b2 and above) and Ogg Vorbis (especially aoTuV beta 4.51/Lancer builts) are better for high bitrate (~130 kbps and above) and HE-AAC and now AACPlus2 is the best for low bitrates (~64 kbps and lower).

But this maybe changes with future aoTuV optimizations like beta 5 or 6..

aoTuV beta 4.51 w/ -q5 and Lame 3.97b2 w/ -v3 --new-vbr are very good, mostly transparently..

best regards,

iNsuRRecTiON
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: vinnie97 on 2006-03-31 07:59:06
So...it's been over a year since the last one was started.  How about a new one?  As a lowly board plebian, I have no permission to create a new poll.
Title: time for another what-lossy-codec-do-you-do-poll
Post by: Synthetic Soul on 2006-04-07 10:03:52
Poll closed.  Superceded by [a href="http://index.php?showtopic=43254" target="_blank"]Your lossy codec of choice in 2006? (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=43254)[/a]
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2019