Hydrogenaudio Forums

Hydrogenaudio Forum => Polls => Topic started by: vinnie97 on 02 April, 2006, 07:43:23 PM

Poll
Question: What codec do you use predominately in your collection?
Option 1: MP3 votes: 447
Option 2: Ogg Vorbis     votes: 267
Option 3: MP4-AAC     votes: 123
Option 4: MPC     votes: 94
Option 5: WMA     votes: 13
Option 6: Other votes: 28
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: vinnie97 on 02 April, 2006, 07:43:23 PM
Self-explanatory, I think...the previous poll being over a year old and there has been substantial development (IMO) across all the major players (barring MPC with little known about WMA).
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: guruboolez on 02 April, 2006, 07:48:12 PM
MP3. I regret it, because I expected during my first listening test in 2003 (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=14091&hl=) a massive support of new formats in hardware players. Situation is getting better and better, but in 2006 MP3 is still ruling the marking with minor issues (tag mostly) compared to Vorbis.
Lossless & mp3 (lame) for me.

EDIT: new poll, at last. Thanks
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: vinnie97 on 02 April, 2006, 07:53:27 PM
No problem.  It couldn't have been easier!...I didn't realize this is where the lowly forum plebians could post polls....I suspect if it meets the approval of the mod gods, that it will get moved to the Poll forum.

Thanks to the likes of Iriver, Iaudio and Rockbox for the Ipod, I am happy to say that Vorbis is flying high in my personal collection.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: Wombat on 02 April, 2006, 07:56:02 PM
Still mp3.
Looks like i will like it till every hardware will be able to play and store tons of lossless files.
Maybe i´ll never get the chance to need another lossy format
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: Zurman on 02 April, 2006, 07:57:38 PM
mp3, because it's the only codec supported by my DAP. And thanks to Lame, excellent quality.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: Cygnus X1 on 02 April, 2006, 08:00:16 PM
MP3 - sounds good and works with everything. Maybe if my future devices support a format sounding as good as LAME -V2 at half the bitrate, I'd think about switching. Until then, I see little point in dumping my MP3's.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: Brink on 02 April, 2006, 08:01:31 PM
I haven't made a single ABX testing with Vorbis, Mp3 and other formats, but Mp3 is so hardware supported, so standard in industry and with so great quality when i'm listening to, that i'm still stuck with it.

I've been doing some encodings with vorbis tough, but mainly from lossless sources and pc only enjoyment.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: Axon on 02 April, 2006, 08:10:23 PM
Vorbis right now but I'll be probably moving to MP3 in the future.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: vinnie97 on 02 April, 2006, 08:12:41 PM
If you voted for "Other," please follow up with what that entails in the thread.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: rjamorim on 02 April, 2006, 08:16:57 PM
MP3
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: Supacon on 02 April, 2006, 08:25:37 PM
I rip CDs and encode to lossless (FLAC these days) and keep a copy on a computer with a very large hard drive.  I encode them into smaller lossy files as required.
I tend to prefer Ogg Vorbis, as I can play them in my Treo 650, and small files are a good thing!

The only things keeping me using MP3 at all are:
-I use DJ software that is badly out of date, and still doesn't support anything other than MP3 and WMA (BPM Studio Professional by AlcaTech) but they claim that they will support Ogg Vorbis and not AAC in the next version.
-A friend I share my files with insists on MP3, mainly just because that's what she already has in her collection.  (She's not nearly as computer savvy as myself though).

AAC is promising too, but it's a pain in the ass to use, and it always costs money in every instance of an encoder or decoder, which I'd rather not bother with.  I do think that the quality is better for ultra-low bitrate lossy encoding.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: Supacon on 02 April, 2006, 08:27:45 PM
Axon, I'd be interested in knowing why you currently use Vorbis, but would want to switch to MP3?  Did you recently buy a DAP that doesn't support Vorbis?
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: rjamorim on 02 April, 2006, 08:36:38 PM
Quote
AAC is promising too, but it's a pain in the ass to use, and it always costs money in every instance of an encoder or decoder[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=378362"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


What do you mean? You surely know that there are free AAC encoders (iTunes, Real Player) and decoders (aforementioned ones, plus Winamp, Foobar, etc)
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: singaiya on 02 April, 2006, 08:43:18 PM
As of today, MP3. But having just bought an ipod yesterday, I may soon switch to AAC.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: VCSkier on 02 April, 2006, 09:04:37 PM
mp3 is all my player supports unfortunately, so thats what i use mostly.  i like to use ogg sometimes, because i know i can get transparent encodes at 128kbps or below.  even more so now, because i use linux, and it just feels right.    i hope to switch to ogg completely eventually, when i get a new dap most likely.  but as for now, i'm satisfied with the quality of mp3 at -V4 or -V5, and mp3 does have the great advantage of being able to be played on any of my friends computers, as sadly, most of them use itunes or windows media player (aka windows media virus).

i know its ot, but i proudly use wavpack for archiving.  its features are unbeatble.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: Sphix on 02 April, 2006, 09:21:43 PM
mp3
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: Bourne on 02 April, 2006, 09:27:11 PM
being that the majority of DVD Players support only MP3, it's going to be MP3... the hardware support is a real stronghold for newer/better encoders
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: IgorC on 02 April, 2006, 09:29:58 PM
Not even a little doubt. LAME mp3 .
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: zombiewerewolf on 02 April, 2006, 09:42:17 PM
Still using MP3, mainly because of hardware support.
Even though more and more products (mostly, in mobile phones market) start supporting AAC, they are still not fully compatible with it. For example, W800i support both AAC and MP3 but only MP3 tag can be read.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: Glass on 02 April, 2006, 09:46:36 PM
Vorbis baby.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: Jojo on 02 April, 2006, 09:47:55 PM
mp3 (Lame of course)...--preset standard averages at 190kbps (Lame 3.97), I can play it everywhere, low power consumption...what else could I be asking for
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: Musique-Rabbit on 02 April, 2006, 09:49:43 PM
MP3.

I archived all my 934 CDs in .WV and transcode into .MP3 for my portables.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: DreamTactix291 on 02 April, 2006, 09:54:32 PM
Vorbis on my H140 due to the speed of encoding of Lancer from my WavPack files.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: tev777 on 02 April, 2006, 09:55:48 PM
Back to mp3 for me. I was a dedicated Vorbis user, but with my iPod, PSP, and Dell Axim x51v (love that thing) I realized it was better to use mp3 for compatibility reasons.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: haregoo on 02 April, 2006, 10:15:11 PM
MP3. Maybe until lossy is being exterminated.

I expected much more user use LC-AAC with iPod.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: krazy on 02 April, 2006, 10:17:00 PM
After using vorbis for a while, it's back to LAME mp3 -V3 for compatibility with quality. Thanks Gabriel and co.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: lextune on 02 April, 2006, 10:19:02 PM
Well, I rip WavPack images mostly, but if and when I choose lossy, it's still MPC-Insane for me.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: William on 02 April, 2006, 10:25:13 PM
Vorbis currently. Faster encoding, nice quality, and my DAP supports it.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: Antaeogo on 02 April, 2006, 10:37:05 PM
Well, for my own enjoyment - the stuff I rip and leave on my computer for occasional listening to, it's Vorbis.

But for the stuff I take around MP3 is the only choice. Work best with my car stereos, ipod, etc and I don't see myself changing in the next couple of years.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: loophole on 03 April, 2006, 12:10:01 AM
AAC - transparent to me at 128kbps VBR and works on everything i have (OS X machine, iPod and SE k750i phone)
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: Insolent on 03 April, 2006, 01:15:45 AM
MP3.

I can't hear any difference between it and any of the other major lossy formats, so I may as well just stick with the better supported one.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: scottder on 03 April, 2006, 01:55:04 AM
Since I loaded Rockbox on my Nano, ogg vorbis.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: audio2u on 03 April, 2006, 01:59:51 AM
Lame @ CBR320 for music (this way, mobile use is overkill, but when I play 'em at home on the hi-fi, they still sound respectable), but I publish my podcasts @ -V5 --vbr-new.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: Jebus on 03 April, 2006, 02:07:36 AM
I am also surprised that AAC isn't doing better here. I would have expected most iPod users would have switched.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: Cosmo on 03 April, 2006, 02:09:23 AM
MP3

Other codecs lack any advantage that I consider to be significant.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: David Nordin on 03 April, 2006, 02:33:52 AM
Lossless and MPEG-4-AAC for me, and *I really thought more people went that way

I have MPEG-4 in my cellphone, PDA and laptop.
Lossless is kept stationary computer hooked up to stereo.

I use Nero AAC Q2 (~50kbps VBR), it's not transparent but it's really impressive.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: Wintershade on 03 April, 2006, 02:58:22 AM
Ogg Vorbis. For my personal use it's perfect since I've got a hardware player that supports it, and it suits my ears better than mp3 at lower bitrates. As for sh***ng, I really don't care if people don't know what RockBox is (or don't want to buy a hardware player that natively supports this wonderful codec).
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: grug on 03 April, 2006, 03:15:55 AM
LAME MP3 of course.

I like being able to play my music on my PC, my Xbox, my phone, my PSP, my iPod, in my car, my home stereo, you get the picture.

I don't have the space to store everything lossless, and I wouldn't be able to hear the difference anyway.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: vinnie97 on 03 April, 2006, 03:33:08 AM
I think AAC isn't making a showing because of it's overall failure to deliver on quality claims when compared to the competition.  HE-AAC at 64kbps and below seems to be changing that, however (if you can tolerate SBR artifacts).
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: halb27 on 03 April, 2006, 03:35:26 AM
mp3 (Lame):
very good quality, low battery drain on mobile DAPs, universal usage.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: kurtnoise on 03 April, 2006, 03:54:58 AM
AAC for me but mainly for dvd backup...lossless otherwise of course.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: carlcamper on 03 April, 2006, 02:00:06 PM
Ever since buying an iPod Nano (with video playback through iPodLinux of course, and Half-Life, hehe)...... still LAME mp3! (-V2 -new) Highly shareable to all my friends, and transparent enough for me that i use this for archiving (dumb, i know, but, oh well, i get majority of my music "elsewhere", and as long as it is at least the old "Uberstandard" VBR, its fine by me)
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: kkumul on 03 April, 2006, 02:35:17 PM
MP3 is good enough for everything to me.
I don't have any reason to change my mind so far.
Thanks LAME team.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: Supacon on 03 April, 2006, 02:53:11 PM
Quote
Quote
AAC is promising too, but it's a pain in the ass to use, and it always costs money in every instance of an encoder or decoder[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=378362"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


What do you mean? You surely know that there are free AAC encoders (iTunes, Real Player) and decoders (aforementioned ones, plus Winamp, Foobar, etc)
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=378369"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I suppose I eggagerated a bit, but the best encoder appears to be Nero, based on recent listening tests, and that one does cost money.  Perhaps that's just being a bit anal, as the iTunes encoder wasn't very far behind. 

As for the free decoders, yes, Winamp & Foobar have free aac decoders.  Most other software out there requires extra payment though... like players for your palm pilot or PocketPC and such.  I'm not really sure how that can be so, however... why do some companies have to pay licensing fees on AAC, and other companies can freely distribute software with support for the codec without paying?

But in any case, this must be one factor that helps to discourage its adoption, especially amongst HA users.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: Andavari on 03 April, 2006, 03:46:57 PM
MP3 for the obvious reason it's supported practically everywhere. It's too bad open-source formats don't have as much support.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: jaybeee on 03 April, 2006, 03:56:11 PM
Any audio that I encode to play on my iriver H120, I use Ogg Vorbis.

But I have A LOT of mp3 files, and still encode to mp3 (LAME '-V 2 --vbr-new') for sharing of non-commercial music only.  LAME is truly great, but Ogg Vorbis creates smaller files and same quality for me... and with Lancer it's quicker too.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: Emanuel on 03 April, 2006, 04:11:38 PM
For personal use: Vorbis, on my iRiver H140, Palm TX and laptop.
For public use: Lame mp3.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: Antonski on 03 April, 2006, 04:17:27 PM
I would vote for MPC if at least v7.5 was released.
Ogg Vorbis for the present.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: Hollunder on 03 April, 2006, 04:26:58 PM
mp3 because it's well known by everyone and because of it's hardware support.

My car player supports nothing else.
Imagine: You host some stuff you just made or recorded and most people can't listen to it because they don't know the codec...

And I use, don't laugh... ATRAC because of my NetMD, damn old thing with a piece of software that's famous for it's crappynes

And flac for archivating/home use
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: singaiya on 03 April, 2006, 04:34:14 PM
Quote
mp3 (Lame):
very good quality, low battery drain on mobile DAPs, universal usage.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=378489"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I don't recall seeing any conclusive proof one way or the other regarding battery drain between formats. I do recall seeing something where battery drains more as bitrates increase, but not inherently due to codec format when using similar bitrates.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: psycho on 03 April, 2006, 04:44:26 PM
MP3

Because of hardware support... like many have already said before. My car player supports only mp3 and wma, the same goes for my portable CD player... So, I can choose between mp3 and wma... Offcourse I choose mp3! 

If all my devices would support mpc, I would use it for sure, it's the best lossy codec for my ears!
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: calx on 03 April, 2006, 04:50:41 PM
MP3 -V 2 --vbr-new.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: rjamorim on 03 April, 2006, 09:23:15 PM
Quote
I suppose I eggagerated a bit, but the best encoder appears to be Nero.


Only on low bitrates. It got disqualified at the 128kbps test, and even if it didn't, it would have been prtty much tied to iTunes.

Quote
As for the free decoders, yes, Winamp & Foobar have free aac decoders.  Most other software out there requires extra payment though... like players for your palm pilot or PocketPC and such.


Just go with TCPMP!

Quote
I'm not really sure how that can be so, however... why do some companies have to pay licensing fees on AAC, and other companies can freely distribute software with support for the codec without paying?


Black magick.

Quote
But in any case, this must be one factor that helps to discourage its adoption, especially amongst HA users.[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=378656"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I think it's mostly because, on all recent listening tests, Vorbis did better than AAC at the bitrates HA users care about. Couple that with the fact that if you disregard the iPod, Vorbis has much better hardware support, and Vorbis becomes a much more interesting choice to the geeks here.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: jorsol on 03 April, 2006, 09:40:48 PM
Vorbis since 2002 (v1.0).
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: saratoga on 03 April, 2006, 09:44:59 PM
As much as I like Ogg, MP3 has amazing compatability.

The lower bitrates where it doesn't work so well just don't seem very relevent these days when you've got 300GB hard disks and 30GB portable players.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: samesong on 03 April, 2006, 10:16:03 PM
iTunes AAC as of this week, after using Vorbis for over three years 

Why? Two major reasons. One, whenever I wanted to share a song with a friend, the great majority of the time they didn't have the software to play it. Windows Media Player and iTunes have no native support for ogg.

Two: Have you ever played with an iPod before? I somehow avoided using one until a couple weeks ago.. they're nice. The interface is clean, the scroll wheel is amazing, and best of all, they fully support AAC.

I'm just beginning to re-rip all my music in FLAC in case ogg gains some monumentous support in the future, that way I can easily transcode.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: vinnie97 on 03 April, 2006, 10:28:17 PM
Quote
As much as I like Ogg, MP3 has amazing compatability.

The lower bitrates where it doesn't work so well just don't seem very relevent these days when you've got 300GB hard disks and 30GB portable players.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=378817"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Two words, flash players.

Quote
and Vorbis becomes a much more interesting choice to the geeks here.

Perhaps, but for services like www.mixdepot.net where space means everything, the more you can get out of the bits, the better.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: skelly831 on 03 April, 2006, 11:02:02 PM
My crystal ball says we'll see a huge uprise in MusePack activity in 2006...

But if nothing happens, don't blame me!

Mwahahaha!!!

EDIT: I'm using mp3 in the meantime.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: toomuch on 04 April, 2006, 12:47:41 AM
LAME mp3 for me
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: miscellanea on 04 April, 2006, 01:49:09 AM
Vorbis, for archiving music I made (-q 6-7).
But for releasing I'm using MP3 (Lame VBR -V 2).
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: Supacon on 04 April, 2006, 02:24:40 AM
*Duplicate post*
Please delete
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: Supacon on 04 April, 2006, 02:27:44 AM
Quote
Quote
...the best encoder appears to be Nero.


Only on low bitrates. It got disqualified at the 128kbps test, and even if it didn't, it would have been prtty much tied to iTunes.

Quote
But in any case, this must be one factor that helps to discourage its adoption, especially amongst HA users.[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=378656"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I think it's mostly because, on all recent listening tests, Vorbis did better than AAC at the bitrates HA users care about. Couple that with the fact that if you disregard the iPod, Vorbis has much better hardware support, and Vorbis becomes a much more interesting choice to the geeks here.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=378812"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]




Hmm... interesting comment.  Which bitrates would those be, exactly?

I'm presuming that you're generalizing HA users as all being audiophiles that want complete transparency... but I think that there would be a few (well, at least myself) who don't need complete transparency for all applications.

I think a lot of people want something perfect for some scenarios (i.e. listening at home with high grade speakers or headphones), and something very compact for others, like listening on a DAP, in Car, or the like.  In my scenario, I need something very compact to store a very large library of music in a small space (a laptop hard drive).

I find it interesting that you imply AAC is only better than ogg Vorbis at low bitrates.  I guess for me, that would decide it (in favor of AAC) because I only really consider codecs other than MP3 when I'm shooting for low bitrates anyways; if I had a large amount of space available then only two options really make sense to me:

1) Use LAME presets for great compatibility and near-transparency.
2) Go lossless and don't worry about quality.  (You can transcode later.)

I think, though, that option 1 wouldn't need to exist if there was just a wee bit more support in the industry for ogg.  Hopefully that is to come relatively soon.  I guess even if AAC outperforms ogg Vorbis at, say, 48 kb/s, it still has a lot of advantages, being free and all.  I'd love to see MP3 die... but... it's a relic kinda like the floppy drive.  It's taking its bloody time to go away for good.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: jolo on 04 April, 2006, 03:48:29 AM
This is easy.

OGG. It is royalty free, open source and is has superior sound for equivelent size than MP3 or any other form of lossy format.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: jolo on 04 April, 2006, 04:02:37 AM
It is said that people let the marketing deparment of large oligopilies control what they use. Ugh.

The best way to fight control the total Corporate control of art, creativity, unfair copyright laws, the idiotic DRM is with your dollars.

The worse of them is Microsoft and Apple.  How consumers just accept anything they do is beyond me.

For example, there are better portable audio players, that the incredibly unflexible Ipod.
They will never, ever support any royalty free, open source product because they are about marketing and convincing you to eat their limitations and be happy. After all, it has the "accepted cool factor".

Why people who have an understanding of the industry use iTUNES is beyond me. You are stuck with the awful DRM crap.

I use AllofMP3. After I select what I want, then I choose the audio format and quality. One of the options is lossless and I have downloaded music in Monkey's Ape format, lossless.
The will encode your selections for you if you want. Does it cost more to have a lossless format, of course, but it is your choice.
NO DRM.
Youi can select OGG  and the quality desired, MP3 and the quality desired, MMC, Flac, etc, etc.

Lack of  support of open source formats and bowing down to the marketing of oligoopolies,  means, more copy protection schemes, less control of your purchased products, less creativity, less choices,  higher prices, less artists getting a chance to create their art, less revenue for artists and simplpy more Corporate control over art.

Think a little bit and just do a search before purchasing something. Reward the innovative and independent by your dollar.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: .halverhahn on 04 April, 2006, 04:12:12 AM
Lossy: MP3 - Great Hardware/Software Support
Lossless: FLAC - Fast Decoding, Unix Style ;-)
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: Sebastian Mares on 04 April, 2006, 04:14:22 AM
MP3
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: grommet on 04 April, 2006, 04:41:58 AM
Quote
The best way to fight control the total Corporate control of art, creativity, unfair copyright laws, the idiotic DRM is with your dollars.
{edit}

I use AllofMP3. After I select what I want, then I choose the audio format and quality. One of the options is lossless and I have downloaded music in Monkey's Ape format, lossless.
The will encode your selections for you if you want. Does it cost more to have a lossless format, of course, but it is your choice.  NO DRM.
{edit}

Think a little bit and just do a search before purchasing something. Reward the innovative and independent by your dollar.[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=378882"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Do note if you purchase anything from "AllOFMP3", you aren't rewarding anyone but some, uh, "creative" Russians.  Anyway, thanks for taking me off topic.   
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: Tiis on 04 April, 2006, 05:29:27 AM
Vorbis, since it was obvious that there wouldn't be any native MPC support by hardware-players.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: vinnie97 on 04 April, 2006, 06:21:56 PM
It's interesting to see that it's not *quite* a landslide in favor of MP3 (well, perhaps not a surprise here at HA ) and that MPC is falling so far below Vorbis (I suppose that's due to a combination of listening test results, public and personal, revealing tuning improvements, better hardware support and no seeking problems).
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: smok3 on 04 April, 2006, 06:32:29 PM
not so much a fan of portables so far, there is bunch of mpc-s on my hds, but nowadays i use faac or itunes, not for music but for encoding audio that will get muxed with video into mp4s.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: Funkstar De Luxe on 04 April, 2006, 06:43:38 PM
It used to be Musepack for me.  But I'm tired of all it's bullshit.  Flac all the way!!!!
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: pepoluan on 04 April, 2006, 06:58:36 PM
Why, Ogg Vorbis of course! Small and unbelievably transparent on my iPaq, playable excellently using GSPlayer (TCPMP also works, but it's too big to my liking).

Shameless plug: With the RockBox firmware, iPod-ians will now be able to play Vorbis files.

In fact I am mailing some game developers to switch over to Vorbis... trumpeting the fact of high-quality at low-bitrate, not to mention completely public-domain free codec and tools... although in case of ScummVM (http://www.scummvm.org/) they already beat me to it. 
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: Supacon on 04 April, 2006, 07:49:34 PM
Quote
Do note if you purchase anything from "AllOFMP3", you aren't rewarding anyone but some, uh, "creative" Russians.  Anyway, thanks for taking me off topic.   
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=378890"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

AllofMP3 looks like a very interesting site... is it not legal, as in they didn't pay licensing fees for the copies you get? What the heck does this mean anyways?:

Quote
Is it legal to download?

Тhe availability over the Internet of the ALLOFMP3.com materials is authorized by the license # LS-3М-05-03 of the Russian Multimedia and Internet Society (ROMS) and license # 006/3M-05 of the Rightholders Federation for Collective Copyright Management of Works Used Interactively (FAIR). In accordance to the licenses' terms MediaServices pays license fees for all materials downloaded from the site subject to the Law of the Russian Federation "On Copyright and Related Rights". All these materials are solely for personal use. Any further distribution, resale or broadcasting are prohibited.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: zombiewerewolf on 04 April, 2006, 09:24:20 PM
Quote
Quote
mp3 (Lame):
very good quality, low battery drain on mobile DAPs, universal usage.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=378489")


I don't recall seeing any conclusive proof one way or the other regarding battery drain between formats. I do recall seeing something where battery drains more as bitrates increase, but not inherently due to codec format when using similar bitrates.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=378713"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

At least it's true with iRiver's products. Ogg's consumption of battery life is greater than MP3's.

[a href="http://www.misticriver.net/showthread.php?t=10242]http://www.misticriver.net/showthread.php?t=10242[/url]
http://www.misticriver.net/showpost.php?&p...96&postcount=81 (http://www.misticriver.net/showpost.php?&p=235296&postcount=81)
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: saratoga on 04 April, 2006, 09:26:38 PM
Quote
Quote
As much as I like Ogg, MP3 has amazing compatability.

The lower bitrates where it doesn't work so well just don't seem very relevent these days when you've got 300GB hard disks and 30GB portable players.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=378817"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Two words, flash players.



I guess.  Its hard for me to see the logic in it though.  From my view, you buy flash because its all you need.  If space is an issue, chopping 20% off the bitrate (random number I made up) isn't going to make a huge difference.  If 4GB was little enough space that you are willing to change formats, and sacrifice compatability, is being able to fit maybe the equivilent of 5GB of MP3 at equivilent quality really going to be enough?  For some maybe.  For many, buying a HD player thats marginally heavier but massively more spacious is probably what you're going to do.

I don't doubt there are people who do this.  I do think they're a small percentage of vorbis uses.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: broski on 04 April, 2006, 09:35:05 PM
Mp3...only because I find it's less resource hungry on my PDA.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: grommet on 04 April, 2006, 09:37:25 PM
If you are in Russia, AllOFMP3 is mostly legal.  Beyond that.... it's somewhat up to your country.   

They basically survive on a technicality in their laws.  Their law doesn't consider them selling/transmitting digitized files to you as copying.  So, since it's not copying... there is no crime.      Russian copyright allows music to be "performed" without the authorization of the owner for broadcasting or cable transmission.  It just needs to pay "fees" to ROMS (Russian Organization for Multimedia & Digital Systems), which is somewhat like the fees US radio stations pay to music publishers (composers).  In other words, not much.

Anyway, use search... I'm sure it's been covered in numerous places.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: boombaard on 04 April, 2006, 09:42:23 PM
Quote
If you are in Russia, AllOFMP3 is mostly legal.   Beyond that.... it's somewhat up to your country.  

They basically survive on a technicality in their laws.   Their law doesn't consider them selling/transmitting digitized files to you as copying.  So, since it's not copying... there is no crime.      Russian copyright allows music to be "performed" without the authorization of the owner for broadcasting or cable transmission.  It just needs to pay "fees" to ROMS (Russian Organization for Multimedia & Digital Systems), which is somewhat like the fees US radio stations pay to music publishers (composers).  In other words, not much.

Anyway, use search... I'm sure it's been covered in numerous places.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=379318"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


yes.. biggest problem with AoMP3 is that they allow users to rip/upload their own music in exchange for 'credit' or something.. so you don't really know what quality rip it is until you've bought/downloaded something afaik
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: vinnie97 on 04 April, 2006, 11:39:59 PM
Quote
Quote
Quote
As much as I like Ogg, MP3 has amazing compatability.

The lower bitrates where it doesn't work so well just don't seem very relevent these days when you've got 300GB hard disks and 30GB portable players.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=378817"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Two words, flash players.



I don't doubt there are people who do this.  I do think they're a small percentage of vorbis uses.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=379316"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

lol, and you've found one of them, me.  Since I've backed up my sources to FLAC, there's really no great concern with encoding them over night to my codec of choice.  If it means I can fit in X more albums, it's a sacrifice I'm willing to take...but you are probably right in assuming that's the minority.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: pepoluan on 05 April, 2006, 03:42:44 PM
If space is an issue, chopping 20% off the bitrate (random number I made up) isn't going to make a huge difference.
That's where you're wrong my friend

I travel by public transports most of the time. Rarely are they sound-insulated, which means that I am fooling myself if I use too high a setting (e.g. Vorbis -q4) In fact, for my personal experience, I can safely use (don't scream now...) Vorbis -q1 and I can't tell the difference with Vorbis -q4... on the bus that is

So the saving is greater than 20%.

Now let's see... currently I have nearly 200 songs on my 256 MB CF. If the saving is only 20% then that already means I have additional of around 40 songs. 2 albums worth of songs.

I'd go all the way down to -q0 if possible... unfortunately at that level the diesel engine's hum is not masking enough...
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: Supacon on 05 April, 2006, 04:33:31 PM
Ogg q1 sounds fine to me, as a bare minimum bitrate, but I'm sure I could abx between it and the source easily.  Nothing stands out as being too terrible though.

I use ogg q0 for things that must be small... it's tolerable, but I can certainly hear artefacts on some songs.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: Firon on 05 April, 2006, 05:30:16 PM
I use MP3 (-V2/0 --vbr-new) for compatibility reasons. Sometimes, I use vorbis (especially when streaming).
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: smok3 on 05 April, 2006, 05:40:48 PM
(everytime i read the title it reads: 'your lousy codec of choice' for some reason... )
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: randal1013 on 05 April, 2006, 06:09:01 PM
out of that list, i use MP3s for my ipod. on my computer i use wavpack, although i have a couple albums in different codecs like musepack and ogg.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: Supacon on 05 April, 2006, 10:16:27 PM
(everytime i read the title it reads: 'your lousy codec of choice' for some reason... )


My lousy codec of choice would have to be ATRAC3 
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: Teqnilogik on 05 April, 2006, 10:31:59 PM
AAC for me.  I love its integration into iTunes and it works great on my iPod (obviously).  Plus (to my ears) I get the same quality at 128 kbps as I would with MP3 at higher bit rates so it works like a charm for me.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: optimuz on 05 April, 2006, 11:14:00 PM
MP3, because it's widely supported and "all" releases come in mp3
And it sounds good enough for me, becuase I don't have any overkill stereo/speakers
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: vinnie97 on 05 April, 2006, 11:39:03 PM
(everytime i read the title it reads: 'your lousy codec of choice' for some reason... )

Thanks to the power of suggestion, I'm now seeing that, too.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: sven_Bent on 06 April, 2006, 01:57:05 AM
MP4-AAC
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: Shade[ST] on 06 April, 2006, 02:06:17 AM
I voted mp3, because the name "Lame" sounds perceptually better to me
(It's my main criteria for choosing software -- notice how "Photoshop" sounds more 1337 than "Paint Shop Pro"?  They have Pr0 nam3rz working for them, at Adobe)
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: vinnie97 on 06 April, 2006, 07:13:35 AM


Uh oh, MPC about to drop into fourth...who woulda' thunk it just 2 years ago.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: PatchWorKs on 06 April, 2006, 07:14:52 AM
Vorbis is great, AoTuV rulez, Lancer rockz !
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: Busemann on 06 April, 2006, 07:46:45 AM
I use both AAC & LAME for my personal stuff. I prefer AAC since it's easier and faster to encode, and of course uses less power to decode. The quality is transparent for both formats ime.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: Olive on 06 April, 2006, 08:00:37 AM
Ogg Vorbis. Lancer is shockingly fast and I couldn't ABX it aginst the classic encoder. I wish it had more hardware and software support though.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: halb27 on 06 April, 2006, 04:02:35 PM
I don't recall seeing any conclusive proof one way or the other regarding battery drain between formats. I do recall seeing something where battery drains more as bitrates increase, but not inherently due to codec format when using similar bitrates.

Just for an answer - don't want to go off-topic:
I did extensive tests on my iRiver H140 before really using it. Difference in battery life was something like 2h when switching from mp3 cbr256 to vorbis (I guess it was q6 or q7 - bitrate was definitely inferior to mp3's) or to wavPack lossy 384kbps (my prefered format then).

But I forgot to mention another nice feature of mp3 which I really appreciate: changing the volume losslessly after encoding using mp3gain.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: naylor83 on 06 April, 2006, 04:40:23 PM
To those who think Ogg Vorbis is an unnecessary complication:

Why not use the best audio compression available? Your friends can readjust. Someone has to make the first move. Being a technocrat, I'm more than happy to do so myself.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: smok3 on 06 April, 2006, 04:56:41 PM
naylor83, so you think my mpc's are a bad thing or what? iam deeply hurt... 
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: Supacon on 06 April, 2006, 04:59:34 PM
But I forgot to mention another nice feature of mp3 which I really appreciate: changing the volume losslessly after encoding using mp3gain.


Is there not a Vorbisgain tool for your oggs?
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: pepoluan on 06 April, 2006, 05:26:23 PM
Whoa... the VorbisFans are on the move
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: vinnie97 on 06 April, 2006, 05:31:39 PM
losing more ground to mp3, actually.  MP3 = a titan you can't easily bring down.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: ilikedirtthe2nd on 06 April, 2006, 05:45:11 PM
Seems many people here switched from MPC to Vorbis or back to MP3 - Musepack has really become a niche format even in a seperate universe as HA.org is...
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: AtaqueEG on 06 April, 2006, 05:53:37 PM
Lame @ CBR320 for music (this way, mobile use is overkill, but when I play 'em at home on the hi-fi, they still sound respectable), but I publish my podcasts @ -V5 --vbr-new.


Respectable? They should sound exactly like the original (even though they are not, maybe that knowledge is making you think they should sound somewhat "bad")

Oh, and I use MP3. All day, every day. ReplayGain, gapless, tagging, excellent quality at low bitrates, universal compatability, what is not to like?
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: pepoluan on 06 April, 2006, 06:05:19 PM
losing more ground to mp3, actually.  MP3 = a titan you can't easily bring down.
The keyword is easily. Which is why I am sending letters (in addition to emails) to game producers (Firaxis, EA, LucasFilm) to have them support Vorbis, trumpeting its advantages over MP3.

Like I said, ScummVM already support Vorbis internally. If many people will play Scumm?-based games, they will get more and more exposed of Vorbis.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: gameplaya15143 on 06 April, 2006, 06:55:08 PM
Ogg Vorbis... for about 3 years now... ever since I first encoded a song with q0 lowpass 20khz with headac3he.. searched for a couple weeks for how to change the lowpass with oggenc.. found it  and will never go back to anything else

I have recently been applying vorbisgain as well as re-ripping CDs (a lot of my music used to be transcoded from mp3  )

all encoded with -q 0 --advanced-encode-option lowpass_frequency=999
older tracks with oggenc 1.0.1.. newer ones with lancer aotuv b4.51
(both via dBpowerAMP... it's just easier)

When I got into video capture and encoding, I wanted to save as much space on my music as possible (only have a 40gb hdd)... ~70kbps each song... sufficient for my listening needs

for the ocasional mp3, lame 3.93.1
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: razer on 06 April, 2006, 07:30:48 PM
Like someone has already said, it is sad that we let the market control our choice of codec. There are probably  no real reasons NOT to use MP3 at this point, but I just don't WANT to. I want to discourage monopolies (which I hope is the right word), not support them. The companies that make DAPs and sell us digital music shouldn't tell us what formats we can use, we should tell THEM.

I voted Musepack. I just can't seem to let go of it. If I did indeed change formats at this point, it would probably be to Vorbis, for lossy encodings that is. For lossless I use WavPack.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: Leo 69 on 06 April, 2006, 08:41:46 PM
After I heard obvious artifacts with MP3 @ 320 kbps I'll never dare to use it for home stereo. I stick to Vorbis @ 192.

P.S. For those, who stick to TOS#8, please read this thread:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=42844 (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=42844)
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: Khushrenada on 06 April, 2006, 11:52:08 PM
most of my files are in vorbis, but i am really considering switching back to mp3 once i finally get a portable player.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: rhammill on 07 April, 2006, 12:32:07 AM
The short answer is WMA.

The long answer is:
I've done a lot of research on this recently. I started with AAC, since I thought I was going to get an iPod, but the external hard drive I had used for music died before I could back it up (it was only 3 months old).

Anyway, since I had to start again, and had a new laptop as well I did a little more research. I have a lot of files in flac format and found I could get a plug-in to play that in WMP directly. Then I found I could get an audio player that alos supported it (looking at the Cowon U3). So I entered all of the data into Media Player, then moved the files to a network share where I'd be storing the files, and all of the data (song titles, etc.) disappeared. Since flac doesn't save that data in the file itself, it is only in the WMP database, it makes it more difficult to manage the music.

On Extremetech, they have a comparison and found that they liked WMA the best, with AAC a close second for a lossy format. Since there is a lossless version of WMA, and as far as I can tell, any player that playes WMA can play the lossless version, I have re-encoded everything in WMA 128kb for use on my laptop (and future audio player) to save space, and the remaining is still in flac on the server side. I'm hoping WMA11 is capable of compressing on the fly when loading an audio player, and that I can also set up the laptop as an 'audio player' so I can sync with the lossless files on my network. If that's the case then I may convert those to WMA lossless.

Randy
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: rjamorim on 07 April, 2006, 05:49:43 AM
Hmm... interesting comment.  Which bitrates would those be, exactly?


Above 128kbps.

Quote
I'm presuming that you're generalizing HA users as all being audiophiles that want complete transparency... but I think that there would be a few (well, at least myself) who don't need complete transparency for all applications.


I don't want complete transparency. But I don't want wish-washy underwater sound effects on my encodes either, so I think 128 - 160 is plenty (for me).

Quote
I'd love to see MP3 die... but... it's a relic kinda like the floppy drive.  It's taking its bloody time to go away for good.


I really don't see the point in your comparison. For starters, MP3 is very, very good for the vast majority of people. Just look at this poll: if even the educated geeks at HA love MP3, what to think about the uneducated masses that never heard of Vorbis and AAC?

Also, MP3 just gets the job done, and very well. It might not have the elegance or efficiency of AAC and Vorbis, but it's never what sold it anyway. It simply won't die any time sooner than AAC or Vorbis die, because it has all the inertia in the world backing it up, and it just doesn't seem to be slowing down.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: Garf on 07 April, 2006, 05:51:41 AM
On Extremetech, they have a comparison and found that they liked WMA the best,


Was it a properly conducted, blind test? Which version of WMA? Pro or Standard have very different performance.Take a look at how the listening tests here are conducted and you will understand the scepticism.

Quote
Since there is a lossless version of WMA, and as far as I can tell, any player that playes WMA can play the lossless version,


As far as I know that's completely wrong.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: naylor83 on 07 April, 2006, 06:06:06 AM
naylor83, so you think my mpc's are a bad thing or what? iam deeply hurt... 


No, my post was directed at those who advocate MP3 for its compatibility.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: Anacondo on 07 April, 2006, 06:07:59 AM
For me 2005 has been the year to re-discover MP3. Decisive factors: the almost non-existant MPC development and, mostly, the adquisition of an MP3 DAP.

Right now, I only use WavPack lossy 320 w/ embedded cuesheet for archiving and LAME V2 for my portable.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: vinnie97 on 07 April, 2006, 07:02:45 AM

On Extremetech, they have a comparison and found that they liked WMA the best,


Was it a properly conducted, blind test? Which version of WMA? Pro or Standard have very different performance.Take a look at how the listening tests here are conducted and you will understand the scepticism.


The test is 2 years old...I would recommend that Rhammil check out the public listening test completed here @ Hydrogenaudio earlier this year as well.  I looked up that Extremetech test and found http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1560786,00.asp (http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1560786,00.asp)

The methodology utilized was single-ABX....the reference file wasn't given to the listeners, just WMA lossless and 4 lossily encoded copies of the same tune burnt to disk (none identified).  I'd say the results are dubious at best, outdated at worst.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: bubba on 07 April, 2006, 10:16:50 AM
I'm Vorbis fan since first public betas. Hardware compatibility is not a big deal to me, I'm just waiting for a cheap portable player with Vorbis support, and I can wait for a while. MP3 is a past to me, I don't use it until I have to.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: Borisz on 07 April, 2006, 10:50:54 AM
I used Musepack before but I'm leaning back to mp3 these days. LAME became much better then I ever expected and Musepack developement is at a halt.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: kwanbis on 07 April, 2006, 11:28:21 AM
On Extremetech, they have a comparison and found that they liked WMA the best, with AAC a close second for a lossy format. Since there is a lossless version of WMA, and as far as I can tell, any player that playes WMA can play the lossless version

If WMA is transparent to you fine.

But, WMA Standard is not as good as LAME/VORBIS/AAC. (You can check various BLIND listening test produced here (or this very uggly "brief" (http://www.webearce.com.ar/roselite.png)))

WMA Pro is very good, but unsupported by most of the players.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: BradPDX on 07 April, 2006, 01:17:26 PM
AAC via iTunes/Quicktime. I use LAME MP3 as well, but prefer the sound of AAC by a substantial margin, even at higher bitrates.

I use iPods, so no Ogg for me. I am sure it works just fine.

I own most of my music on CDs, so I don't bother to use up drive space on uncompressed versions (it would add up to a bit more than 1TB). I use 128kbps AAC (VBR) for use with my iPods as it sounds very good for the size, much less fatiguing than LAME -V 5 for me. When I want more, I go to my original source CDs.

I wonder what my kids will be using in High School. I'll find out in a few years and report it here.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: AtaqueEG on 07 April, 2006, 01:18:35 PM
I'm Vorbis fan since first public betas. Hardware compatibility is not a big deal to me, I'm just waiting for a cheap portable player with Vorbis support, and I can wait for a while. MP3 is a past to me, I don't use it until I have to.


What about the iPod Nano? It is reasonable (heck, even the iPod video is!)

I think Rockbox support is as close as Vorbis is going to get to current DAPs.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: vinnie97 on 07 April, 2006, 01:37:18 PM
Quote
I use iPods, so no Ogg for me.

No longer the case if you can rid yourself of Apple's firmware.

Quote
I think Rockbox support is as close as Vorbis is going to get to current DAPs.

Also not the case if this is anything to go by:  http://wiki.xiph.org/index.php/PortablePlayers (http://wiki.xiph.org/index.php/PortablePlayers)
With Iriver, Samsung and Iaudio supporting it out of the box, I'd say that's pretty substantial.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: rhammill on 07 April, 2006, 01:51:04 PM
In response to the few responses to my post above about WMA...

I just did a quick search around various sites to compare what others thought about the quality. My decision to use WMA right now isn't because I think it's the absolute best lossy format out there. I don't think there can be a 'best' format because it's lossy. Everybody will hear things differently. My friends still encode with mp3 to 64-96kb. I'm sure I have much better quality than they do, although I would if I used mp3 at 128kb as well. I'm happy enough with the quality, but then again I'm listening to it through the speakers in my laptop. When I get around to getting an audio player with decent headphones I may feel differently.

I didn't do my own comparisons because it wasn't that important to me. I wanted to save a little space on my laptop, sure, but more importantly I wanted to only have to enter in all of the data only one more time for now. I got tired of re-entering the information again and again. I also like the compatibility factor of wma with a large number of players. While I love the iPod Nano, and it's still one of the options high on my list, I also like some of the other features coming out on other players. I also highly doubt that iTunes/iPod will ever support flac. At this point I may wait until WMP11 comes out before making a final choice on players.

So I'm sure there are studies that will show that WMA is not as good a format as whatever. But there are other studies that say otherwise. I'm certainly not trying to convince everybody that my choice is the one everybody else should make, this was just a poll as to what format each of us is using.

Also, since my CD collection has never become as large as my LP collection was, and probably never will be, I'm also looking into one of the various subscription options which I can't do via iTunes. There's tons of music I'd like to hear every once and a while again, but not enough that I'll go buy it, and not enough that I care if it's a lossless format or not. If anybody has any suggestions of which of the mainstream subscription services is good, I'd love to hear...but that's another thread.

Randy
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: AtaqueEG on 07 April, 2006, 01:59:58 PM
Quote
I use iPods, so no Ogg for me.

No longer the case if you can rid yourself of Apple's firmware.

Quote
I think Rockbox support is as close as Vorbis is going to get to current DAPs.

Also not the case if this is anything to go by:  http://wiki.xiph.org/index.php/PortablePlayers (http://wiki.xiph.org/index.php/PortablePlayers)
With Iriver, Samsung and Iaudio supporting it out of the box, I'd say that's pretty substantial.


iRiver, iAudio and Samsung are small players in the DAP world. They are being overwhelmed by Apple. My guess-- but I am no fortune-teller-- is that they will continue to be, just as long as Apple keeps offering the easiest-to-use interface and as long as it enjoys its "fashionable" status. I am not sure I like that myself. Heck, my first DAP was a Rio Karma, for chrissakes! But Rio never quite got their act together. Now I have gone with Apple, because, sincerely I like to keep things simple. So I chose to use the main codec and the main DAP. And I have been around here for more than four years! Do you really think things are/could be different in the outside world?

I like Vorbis, I do. But I think that it will continue to be a niche codec.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: rhammill on 07 April, 2006, 03:40:32 PM
Hmm... The studies do look interesting, especially how AAC comes out ahead of WMA right now. I'll also have to find out more about the WMA Pro thing. More food for thought, although now that I'm well on my way to WMA-land it may be a while before I re-encode again...

Randy
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: vinnie97 on 07 April, 2006, 05:08:43 PM
[iRiver, iAudio and Samsung are small players in the DAP world. They are being overwhelmed by Apple. My guess-- but I am no fortune-teller-- is that they will continue to be, just as long as Apple keeps offering the easiest-to-use interface and as long as it enjoys its "fashionable" status. I am not sure I like that myself. Heck, my first DAP was a Rio Karma, for chrissakes! But Rio never quite got their act together. Now I have gone with Apple, because, sincerely I like to keep things simple. So I chose to use the main codec and the main DAP. And I have been around here for more than four years! Do you really think things are/could be different in the outside world?

I like Vorbis, I do. But I think that it will continue to be a niche codec.

I generally agree with you...with Apple's stranglehold, AAC is the only format poised to succeed on a wider scale in the long-term.  That said, I won't let that stop me from evangelizing about the pros of going Vorbis.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: NeDtHeOnE on 08 April, 2006, 07:11:52 AM
Vorbis is great, AoTuV rulez, Lancer rockz !

  Indeed! TRUE! I always use vorbis ... go 4 AoTuV encoder & Lancer OPTIMIZED!

Ogg Vorbis... for about 3 years now... ever since I first encoded a song with q0 lowpass 20khz with headac3he.. searched for a couple weeks for how to change the lowpass with oggenc.. found it  and will never go back to anything else

I have recently been applying vorbisgain as well as re-ripping CDs (a lot of my music used to be transcoded from mp3  )

all encoded with -q 0 --advanced-encode-option lowpass_frequency=999
older tracks with oggenc 1.0.1.. newer ones with lancer aotuv b4.51
(both via dBpowerAMP... it's just easier)

When I got into video capture and encoding, I wanted to save as much space on my music as possible (only have a 40gb hdd)... ~70kbps each song... sufficient for my listening needs


I do the same thing...! When I heard vorbis after encoding for the first time.. I was like WOW! Never ever gonna go for any other lossy codec

After I heard obvious artifacts with MP3 @ 320 kbps I'll never dare to use it for home stereo. I stick to Vorbis @ 192.

P.S. For those, who stick to TOS#8, please read this thread:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=42844 (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=42844)


Yes stick to q6 better than mp3 @ high rates

I'm Vorbis fan since first public betas. Hardware compatibility is not a big deal to me, I'm just waiting for a cheap portable player with Vorbis support, and I can wait for a while. MP3 is a past to me, I don't use it until I have to.


I never use mp3 ... infact i convert the mp3 files i have to vorbis... Its the best!

I dont give a damn about hardware compatibility!

When u see that Vorbis is better! Than go for it. No looking back
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: krmathis on 08 April, 2006, 07:31:16 AM
The few times I encode to a lossy format I use AAC.
First of all because its available out-of-the-box in my favorite audio player, Apple iTunes. But also because its one of the best lossy encoders out there.

But I'm mostly using Apple Lossless though! 
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: damaki on 08 April, 2006, 08:44:54 AM
No change for me so far : wavpack lossy for regular use and mp3 for my ipod.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: NeDtHeOnE on 08 April, 2006, 08:46:12 AM
The few times I encode to a lossy format I use AAC.
First of all because its available out-of-the-box in my favorite audio player, Apple iTunes. But also because its one of the best lossy encoders out there.


READ THIS!

Comparison between all lossy Format (http://www.infoanarchy.org/comments/2002/9/8/23472/23921/0/post)

Eveything is said over here! About the LEADER IN AUDIO LOSSY COMPRESSION! VORBIS...
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: krmathis on 08 April, 2006, 09:04:28 AM
NeDtHeOnE. Are you serious? 
The article you point to is over 3 1/2 years old. "Posted on Sun Sep 8th, 2002 at 11:47:02 PM GMT"

Nothing wrong with Ogg Vorbis, but its no option for an iPod user like me.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: NeDtHeOnE on 08 April, 2006, 09:11:59 AM
NeDtHeOnE. Are you serious? 
The article you point to is over 3 1/2 years old. "Posted on Sun Sep 8th, 2002 at 11:47:02 PM GMT"

Nothing wrong with Ogg Vorbis, but its no option for an iPod user like me.



Yeah ... U can go with your lossy codec

But its true , even the latest comparisons ...(had seen it somewhere) show that .. AoTuV b4.51 leads @ most of the bitrates...
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: senab on 08 April, 2006, 09:19:59 AM
I'm a Vorbis fan, have been since I start using Aoyumi's tunings. My first DAP was the Rio Karma, so it made sense to use Vorbis becuase of it's patchy LAME gapless playback. Now I've got a 30gb iPod with Rockbox on and it works like a charm 
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: krmathis on 08 April, 2006, 09:20:52 AM
NeDtHeOnE. You missed the most important part of my original post!
"The few times I encode to a lossy format I use AAC."
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: shadowking on 08 April, 2006, 09:31:59 AM

NeDtHeOnE. Are you serious? 
The article you point to is over 3 1/2 years old. "Posted on Sun Sep 8th, 2002 at 11:47:02 PM GMT"

Nothing wrong with Ogg Vorbis, but its no option for an iPod user like me.



Yeah ... U can go with your lossy codec

But its true , even the latest comparisons ...(had seen it somewhere) show that .. AoTuV b4.51 leads @ most of the bitrates...


Some people are nuts thinking that vorbis / aac is immune to problem samples. Get real, maybe at 500kbps but at 192k there will be some limited samples. I remember a year or so ago people were finding problems for q6 or more regularly. So use what you will but there is no need to claim superiority at high bitrates when all codecs are close.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: NeDtHeOnE on 08 April, 2006, 02:35:02 PM


NeDtHeOnE. Are you serious? 
The article you point to is over 3 1/2 years old. "Posted on Sun Sep 8th, 2002 at 11:47:02 PM GMT"

Nothing wrong with Ogg Vorbis, but its no option for an iPod user like me.



Yeah ... U can go with your lossy codec

But its true , even the latest comparisons ...(had seen it somewhere) show that .. AoTuV b4.51 leads @ most of the bitrates...


Some people are nuts thinking that vorbis / aac is immune to problem samples. Get real, maybe at 500kbps but at 192k there will be some limited samples. I remember a year or so ago people were finding problems for q6 or more regularly. So use what you will but there is no need to claim superiority at high bitrates when all codecs are close.


 

It is true that @ Higher bitrates all are very similar but not BETTER than Vorbis.

And at Low Bitrates  Vorbis rules. Specially @ -q 2 ! For LAME MP3 to be Descent enough You
have to rip @ 192 vbr ... But for Vorbis .. q4 is MORE than enough
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: johnsonlam on 08 April, 2006, 02:52:12 PM
Still using MP3!

Waiting a few years for OGG Vorbis hardware, but disappointed. I got a FrontierLabs NEX II and NEX IA, both of them announced "may support OGG by firmware upgrade" but in vain.

I don't want to bring a hard disk outdoor, a CF or SD is a better alternative.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: Triza on 08 April, 2006, 04:03:28 PM
iAudio has plenty flash-based player that might suit you. Few of them has Vorbis support.

Triza

Still using MP3!

Waiting a few years for OGG Vorbis hardware, but disappointed. I got a FrontierLabs NEX II and NEX IA, both of them announced "may support OGG by firmware upgrade" but in vain.

I don't want to bring a hard disk outdoor, a CF or SD is a better alternative.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: smok3 on 08 April, 2006, 04:09:30 PM
Quote
It is true that @ Higher bitrates all are very similar but not BETTER than Vorbis.
prove it.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: vinnie97 on 08 April, 2006, 05:12:05 PM
I don't think it's possible to prove what is *not* the case (i.e. that God doesn't exist), only what can be verified scentifically...maybe if you rephrased it.  "Prove that Vorbis is inferior to other codecs at high bitrates," which, less face it, is also hard to do....especially when there is already evidence from the likes of Guru that Vorbis is king near 200 kbps....
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: naylor83 on 08 April, 2006, 05:59:07 PM
I don't think it's possible to prove what is *not* the case (i.e. that God doesn't exist), only what can be verified scentifically...maybe if you rephrased it.  "Prove that Vorbis is inferior to other codecs at high bitrates," which, less face it, is also hard to do....especially when there is already evidence from the likes of Guru that Vorbis is king near 200 kbps....


Well, without getting too philosophical here, you can start testing from say 64 kbps, all formats against each other and then move on up through the bitrates. You'll most likely find that Vorbis is on top all the way from 64 kbps to 160 kbps. At ~192 kbps I think you'd be very hard pressed not to score all contestants 5.0s.

The conclusions you would probably draw from such a test would be that Vorbis and AAC become transparent at roughly 140 kbps (depending on how well trained your ears are, of course) and MP3 and WMA need something like 192 kbps to become transparent.

In other words, saying that one format is better than an other at a high bitrate such as 192 kbps is pointless, unless you can actually hear a difference. (Hey there, bat-ears!) However, we can presume that the formats which for most music are transparent already at ~140 kbps will have fewer "problem samples" at 192 than those formats which for music in general become transparent at 192.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: vinnie97 on 08 April, 2006, 06:35:15 PM
good points!
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: stephanV on 09 April, 2006, 06:57:42 AM
Not really good points. At the last listening test all contestants were tied at 128 kbps, and all scored an average above 4.5. So making a generalized statement that MP3 is worse than Vorbis or AAC at 128 kbps is plain false without backing this up with your own listening test. Besides a few problem samples, you will be hard pressed to find any real disturbing differences at 128 kbps.

I use Vorbis BTW.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: Maglor on 09 April, 2006, 07:56:57 AM
 I seem to to be the only one in here that has about 2000 albums all in WMA at 192Kbps. Do I seem stupid? Well, I may very well be one. But all I know is that not even with Lame can MP3 at the same Bitrate be better than WMA... tested. Any doubts? But I would love to have a Terabyte or two to have this 2000 albums or more on Lossless, because I have an iAudio X5 that can read Flac. And if not that Terabyte solution, then a DAP that can read MPC, and I would very gladly trash the entire collection and have it ripped again, only in MPC.
Cheers!
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: windmiller on 09 April, 2006, 08:45:14 AM
I switched to Ogg when I got my girlfriend a iRiver H320. Once Rockbox is completed for the H320 we will move to lossless only...cant wait! I am tired of having duplicates for mobility.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: sony666 on 09 April, 2006, 11:07:14 AM
lame mp3 until there is a tuned, reliable and free commandline encoder for aac.
LAAC.. Lame ain't an AAC enCoder

I'm not going to settle for Nero or iTunes or whatever
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: jmartis on 09 April, 2006, 02:33:59 PM
wavpack lossy @350kbps for archiving purposes; mp3@Lame(preset standard) for my portable player
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: de Mon on 09 April, 2006, 03:36:23 PM
I seem to to be the only one in here that has about 2000 albums all in WMA at 192Kbps. Do I seem stupid? Well, I may very well be one. But all I know is that not even with Lame can MP3 at the same Bitrate be better than WMA... tested.


 
I would like to see these tests. 
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: Supacon on 09 April, 2006, 03:43:45 PM
wavpack lossy @350kbps for archiving purposes; mp3@Lame(preset standard) for my portable player


Isn't WavPack kinda bad at 350?  Er... for transcoding purposes at least?  It seems to me that >384 was the magic number.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: skelly831 on 09 April, 2006, 04:23:32 PM
lame mp3 until there is a tuned, reliable and free commandline encoder for aac.
LAAC.. Lame ain't an AAC enCoder

I'm not going to settle for Nero or iTunes or whatever

Why not, the iTunes encoder is reliable and free, and can be used as a commandline encoder thru iTunesEncode. The only inconvenience is you have to have iTunes installed.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: AtaqueEG on 09 April, 2006, 05:19:17 PM
I switched to Ogg when I got my girlfriend a iRiver H320. Once Rockbox is completed for the H320 we will move to lossless only...cant wait! I am tired of having duplicates for mobility.


Not that you could hear a difference or anything... 
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: shadowking on 09 April, 2006, 07:44:46 PM

wavpack lossy @350kbps for archiving purposes; mp3@Lame(preset standard) for my portable player


Isn't WavPack kinda bad at 350?  Er... for transcoding purposes at least?  It seems to me that >384 was the magic number.


There isn't a magic number and bitrates are not really affecting transcoding - at least in my tests. You just go for transparent bitrates (>300k) and 350k is already hitting full transparency.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: Mr_Rabid_Teddybear on 09 April, 2006, 08:09:42 PM
Vorbis. Everthing I own can play Vorbis (well, not my fridge), it's transparent at spacesaving bitrates, it's naturally gapless and got a good and singular tagging system. And almost all decoders support replaygain.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: vinnie97 on 10 April, 2006, 01:13:17 AM
Not really good points. At the last listening test all contestants were tied at 128 kbps, and all scored an average above 4.5. So making a generalized statement that MP3 is worse than Vorbis or AAC at 128 kbps is plain false without backing this up with your own listening test. Besides a few problem samples, you will be hard pressed to find any real disturbing differences at 128 kbps.

okok.....virtually tied with the margin of error ensuring no one opponent being crowned the clear winner...but the graph is still the most prevalent in one's mind post listening test and private listening tests have confirmed this superiority around 180 kbps in the realm of classical where it previously performed poorly:
(https://hydrogenaud.io/imgcache.php?id=b14f7dc3bc381ea0b7720cd9c7c8f2aa" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click to view at original size" data-url="http://audiotests.free.fr/tests/2005.08/HQ180/HQ180plots.png)
Not exactly a smoking gun but certainly something not to be brushed aside.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: stephanV on 10 April, 2006, 03:48:24 AM
One private listening test (conducted by someone with very good ears) is not indicative for the most of us. And even here Vorbis is not 'king' like you said before.

Let's just face it, we thankfully have arrived in an era where the quality of a lossy encoder does not necessarily has to be our biggest concern in making a choice of them anymore.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: vinnie97 on 10 April, 2006, 05:15:35 AM
You're correct...for the rest of us without "bat ears," differentiating at such bitrates would be nigh to impossible.  I'm just pointing out trends as of late.  It was only a year prior to the above test in 2004 that Vorbis was performing comparatively poorly in Guru's tests.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: GeSomeone on 10 April, 2006, 05:54:20 AM
In the past I chose Musepack as (prefered) lossy codec for personal use (as I use no portable  ). It is still OK, but it is going the way of the dinosaurs. 
Because I see no reason (yet) to redo the existing collection in another lossy format, the major lossy part is still mpc. Also I find myself not adding as much music to my collection as I did some years ago.
These days I lean more to lossless, also LAME would rank quite high as my choice for new lossy codings now.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: user on 10 April, 2006, 05:59:47 AM
MPC --quality 8 --ms 15 --xlevel
as PC/laptop and DVD space saver, small-sized backup of my Lossless archive.

MP3-Lame -V5 --vbr-new
for my portable USB 1 GB stick, running outdoors, car stereo.


and to complete:
Lossless as archive & HiFi PC listening
formerly Flac and WavPack -x -m
now Flac -8 -V , as Flac is already supported in various HiFi hardware, which is less and more uncertain regarding wavpack unfortunately.

So I have 3 encodes (made as 1 step automatic process by Mareo.exe during EAC ripping) of each album on 3 different DVDs,
Lossless ca. 600 - 1000 kbit/s
MPC ca. 280 kbit/s
MP3 ca. 128 - 140 kbit/s
and feel safe to never rerip again
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: Ivan Dimkovic on 10 April, 2006, 06:02:28 AM
Quote
okok.....virtually tied with the margin of error ensuring no one opponent being crowned the clear winner...but the graph is still the most prevalent in one's mind post listening test and private listening tests have confirmed this superiority around 180 kbps in the realm of classical where it previously performed poorly:


Nero encoder used in that test is quite obsolete - latest Nero encoder (used in Sebastian's 128 kbps listening test, however with a bug that is fixed now)  and Vorbis were quite tied.

I hope Guru will do a new higher bit rate listening test sometimes - I am quite sure the quality picture has been changed compared to the last year.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: vinnie97 on 10 April, 2006, 06:12:38 AM
maybe he will in August 2006...and I'm sure the results will make it even more difficult to pick a favorite.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: hödyr on 10 April, 2006, 01:01:27 PM
I have been using Musepack ever since the year 2000. Now that development has stopped and other codecs as AAC and Vorbis (and even MP3) catch up in quality i'm thinking about switching to another format. What is important to me are several features MPC has:
- native gapless playback (bybye AAC...)
- replaygain support
- high quality

From my POV the latest aoTuV oggenc features all this, plus it's free. There's just something I couldn't find by googling: Is replaygain just something most players feature, or is it explicitly mentioned in the Vorbis spec? I wonder if replaygain will work in mobile players or car stereos that support Vorbis.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: picmixer on 10 April, 2006, 01:25:08 PM
- native gapless playback (bybye AAC...)
- replaygain support


Nero AAC, Vorbis and LAME mp3 are all natively support gapless playback. Of course only if the player or decoder also supports this properly.

The same basically goes for replaygain. Although in the case of AAC and MP3 it is not natively supported by the command line encoders and decoders. Depends if that matters to you I guess.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: dev0 on 10 April, 2006, 01:39:08 PM
MP3. Quality and features are not an issue when using -V2 or higher and proper tagging.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: Dzamburu on 10 April, 2006, 04:33:24 PM
Nero/CT AAC and Lame becouse very good encoders for all situations.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: jorsol on 10 April, 2006, 08:50:37 PM
Quote
Nero/CT AAC and Lame becouse very good encoders for all situations.
And Vorbis too. 

I really belive that if LAME don't exist, Vorbis probably will have the most votes, that for sure... well that and the fact that MP3 has been more than 10 years arround and because of that is a standard de facto.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: ezra2323 on 10 April, 2006, 09:34:17 PM
What can I say? AAC VBR 128 on my iPod(s) sounds great. Simple to encode via iTunes and small file size to boot. It's my codec of choice for 2006. No problems with MP3 though - LAME rocks! Still burn MP3 CDs for the car from time to time. -V4 vbr new.

All archives are ALAC on DVD via EAC and iTunes encode.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: Firon on 10 April, 2006, 09:50:53 PM
hödyr: Vorbis and ReplayGain are two separate things. RG support is even less common than Vorbis support (and non-existant on hardware players, unless Rockbox supports it). It's just a tag for a RG-enabled player to know how much to scale the volume by.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: Supacon on 10 April, 2006, 10:45:14 PM
Yeh, ReplayGain is virtually useless outside of Foobar.  I wish Winamp (and also some DJ software) supported it natively.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: DreamTactix291 on 11 April, 2006, 12:42:46 AM
hödyr: Vorbis and ReplayGain are two separate things. RG support is even less common than Vorbis support (and non-existant on hardware players, unless Rockbox supports it). It's just a tag for a RG-enabled player to know how much to scale the volume by.
Rockbox does support ReplayGain in tags for just about everything it plays including Vorbis.  But comparatively to the amount of devices in the world support is very low.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: ffooky on 11 April, 2006, 04:07:22 AM
iTunes/QT AAC VBR 160 for my iPod. I use iTunesJoin for gapless live shows etc. which is basically a front end for chapter tool.

FLAC for archives, converted to AAC when needed with Toast 7.0.2, tagged with Media Rage/iTunes.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: Triza on 11 April, 2006, 10:45:49 AM
Is replaygain just something most players feature, or is it explicitly mentioned in the Vorbis spec? I wonder if replaygain will work in mobile players or car stereos that support Vorbis.


Sadly Monty excluded replaygain from the vorbis standard. I saw a thread about the whole debate. This in my view was a big mistake. I personally would be very much surprised if any portable or non-PC solution would support the de facto standard replaygain tags. Hence I convert my FLAC onto Ogg Vorbis using the secret and not lossless (!) --apply-replaygain-which-is-not-lossless FLAC option, which in effect waivegains the decoded signal and I encode this into Ogg Vorbis
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: jmartis on 11 April, 2006, 02:35:40 PM

wavpack lossy @350kbps for archiving purposes; mp3@Lame(preset standard) for my portable player


Isn't WavPack kinda bad at 350?  Er... for transcoding purposes at least?  It seems to me that >384 was the magic number.


i dont think so.. even at 300kbps i wasnt able to distinguish it from original; so i already have some headroom  at 250 i was actually able to hear a little added noise (i know waveform comparsions arent quite accepted here but at 350 (320) it least differs from the original when compared w/ other lossy encoders)

edit- i am using the "high quality" option, which lowers a little the quantization noise
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: Supacon on 12 April, 2006, 03:19:34 PM
Okay... I just remember Bryant once saying that 384 kb/s in Wavpack should be transparent, so that's where I got this notion that you'd have to use a bitrate higher than that.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: pepoluan on 12 April, 2006, 03:44:46 PM
Yeh, ReplayGain is virtually useless outside of Foobar.  I wish Winamp (and also some DJ software) supported it natively.
IIRC WinAmp 5 supports ReplayGain, depending on the input plugin. The input plugins that come with WinAmp 5 all support RG.

Edit: There are lots of players that now support ReplayGain. See the HA Wiki page for ReplayGain.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: vinnie97 on 12 April, 2006, 06:53:07 PM
The MPC contigent is still managing to hold onto their lead over MP4 by a thread.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: kwanbis on 12 April, 2006, 07:25:59 PM
The MPC contigent is still managing to hold onto their lead over MP4 by a thread.

yes ... and they have been by Vorbis.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: Seymour on 12 April, 2006, 07:34:28 PM
mpc (Musepack) for home collection (-q 5)
AAC for low-bitrate mobile music listening; mp3 (lame of course) for ringer tone (my SE K700i can't use AAC for this)
mp3 again for portable player (bitrate is low because of environment noise)
and no lossless at all 
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: Supacon on 12 April, 2006, 07:39:55 PM
IIRC WinAmp 5 supports ReplayGain, depending on the input plugin. The input plugins that come with WinAmp 5 all support RG.

Edit: There are lots of players that now support ReplayGain. See the HA Wiki page for ReplayGain.


Uhm... that's news to me... is there any way of verifying this from Within WinAMP?  It seems like my replaygained tracks all sound like different volumes when played in WinAMP.

They all usually sound quite a bit louder than my music videos, in any case.

[edit]
This forum thread in WinAmp's forums seems to contradict your statement pepoluan.
http://forums.winamp.com/showthread.php?threadid=234302 (http://forums.winamp.com/showthread.php?threadid=234302)
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: pepoluan on 13 April, 2006, 08:19:42 AM
Whoopsie. My bad. The built-in input plugin for MP3 does not support RG. You must use Shibatch's in_mpg123.dll (which I use now)

But Winamp's built-in input plugin for Vorbis does support RG! Go Vorbis! Heh heh heh 
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: VEG on 14 April, 2006, 11:08:43 AM
Ogg Vorbis! Best choice.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: pepoluan on 14 April, 2006, 01:39:57 PM
Whoopsie. My bad. The built-in input plugin for MP3 does not support RG. You must use Shibatch's in_mpg123.dll (which I use now)

But Winamp's built-in input plugin for Vorbis does support RG! Go Vorbis! Heh heh heh 
Just FYI, MediaMonkey's built-in input plugins uses in_mpg123.dll, and so it supports RG for all formats it can play. (Sadly, only track-mode RG).
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: iwod on 14 April, 2006, 08:09:22 PM
I use either Mp3 or AAC because of their Hardware Support.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: Mirage2k on 15 April, 2006, 01:26:49 AM
I switched from AAC back to MP3 at the end of 2005 and haven't looked back.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: Mgz on 15 April, 2006, 01:55:50 AM
MP3 since it is so easy to encode... lastest lame MP3 and alt-preset extreme

with AAC, I like AAC but, hmmm , so hard to choose... Nero or Apple, and I hate iTunes T_T
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: k.eight.a on 16 April, 2006, 10:04:34 PM
For me Lame MP3 (-V 2 --vbr-new -Y) exclusively

Below mentioned points clearly covers my thoughts on this topic...
mp3 (Lame): very good quality, low battery drain on mobile DAPs, universal usage.
MP3 for the obvious reason it's supported practically everywhere. It's too bad open-source formats don't have as much support.
As much as I like Ogg, MP3 has amazing compatability.
Oh, and I use MP3. All day, every day. ReplayGain, gapless, tagging, excellent quality at low bitrates, universal compatability, what is not to like?
WavPack (-m -h) for lossless
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: Klyith on 17 April, 2006, 12:28:37 AM
Ogg Vorbis and FLAC for me.

I switched to Ogg from musepack at the beginning of this year. Even before that I was ripping classical stuff in ogg because the long tracks made the seek situation with MPC intolerable. Then at Christmas time I was ripping music from some people and thought, "Why am I still using a near-dead format?" I don't have the ears to appreciate it. So the switch to ogg was made.

I have a MP3 only portable, but I don't find that maintaining a seperate collection is that big a problem. Mostly because I don't change the music on it all that frequently...
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: AtaqueEG on 17 April, 2006, 01:17:26 AM
With software like MAREO around, your choice of codecs easy to achieve, but I wonder, is there really a point in having the same tracks on lossy twice? Is there a resaon I don't see?
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: Firon on 17 April, 2006, 03:51:06 AM
One for use on the PC, the other for the portable, and the FLAC relegated to backup on DVDs or something?
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: Klyith on 17 April, 2006, 08:34:37 PM
With software like MAREO around, your choice of codecs easy to achieve, but I wonder, is there really a point in having the same tracks on lossy twice? Is there a resaon I don't see?
One for use on the PC, the other for the portable, and the FLAC relegated to backup on DVDs or something?

If you were asking about why I said Ogg and FLAC, it should have been Ogg or FLAC. Lossless gets used for any cds that are scratched bad enough that ripping them in EAC is slow and painful. Also sometimes when I borrow a cd from a friend. I don't bother making backups of all my cds, I figure anything that would distroy my cd collection would get the backups too.

But yeah, I keep duplicate mp3s for my Rio of most stuff I rip to Ogg on a 60gb usb drive. It's a much smaller job since I never load classical (and hardly ever jazz) to the portable.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: pika2000 on 20 April, 2006, 02:59:41 AM
Lame MP3 to be specific. Main reason is compatibility and hardware/software support. I mean, even Sony HiMDs can play MP3s now. Also, Lame is well developed and tested, and provide excellent quality.

Atrac: Mainly for gapless. Untill manufactures get their acts together to support gapless (OGG support but no gapless?) or Rockbox takes over all DAPs firmwares, I'll stick with Atrac.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: Maglor on 21 April, 2006, 09:56:41 AM
[quote name='de Mon' date='Apr 9 2006, 07:36 PM' post='380604']
[quote name='Maglor' post='380499' date='Apr 9 2006, 03:56 AM']
I seem to to be the only one in here that has about 2000 albums all in WMA at 192Kbps. Do I seem stupid? Well, I may very well be one. But all I know is that not even with Lame can MP3 at the same Bitrate be better than WMA... tested.
[/quote]

 
I would like to see these tests. 
[  /quote]

I've tested with these hears of mine... it's much easier. Try ripping it at the same bitrate and then compare.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: de Mon on 21 April, 2006, 10:19:51 AM
I've tested with these hears of mine... it's much easier. Try ripping it at the same bitrate and then compare.


WMA better than others? I have a suspicion you have never heard of ABX tests. Am I right?
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: k.eight.a on 25 June, 2006, 11:18:05 AM
@ Maglor: Have you ever heard of HydrogenAudio Terms of Service?

TOS #8: 
All members that put forth a statement concerning subjective sound quality, must -- to the best of their ability -- provide objective support for their claims. Acceptable means of support are double blind listening tests (ABX or ABC/HR) demonstrating that the member can discern a difference perceptually, together with a test sample to allow others to reproduce their findings. Graphs, non-blind listening tests, waveform difference comparisons, and so on, are not acceptable means of providing support. (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=3974#entry149481) 
I seem to to be the only one in here that has about 2000 albums all in WMA at 192Kbps. Do I seem stupid? Well, I may very well be one. But all I know is that not even with Lame can MP3 at the same Bitrate be better than WMA... tested.
 
I would like to see these tests. 
 
I've tested with these hears of mine... it's much easier. Try ripping it at the same bitrate and then compare.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: lolent on 26 June, 2006, 01:47:05 PM
The Musepack codec has my preference to backup my CDs in a lossy format
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: Diow on 26 June, 2006, 06:48:48 PM
I still in mp3 'cause your quality and great compatibity with a great number of devices.
But in the nexts years i think in replace mp3 for ogg,aac or mpc  they starting to offering great quality and when the implementations of these formats are in the begining,except in mpc,  of the mp3 are so close of the end.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: xequence on 27 June, 2006, 11:24:06 AM
Quote
But all I know is that not even with Lame can MP3 at the same Bitrate be better than WMA... tested.


Accually, I heard that WMA is highly optimized for low bitrates (64Kbps), so they can do the marketing stuff (You know... "We beat MP3 at 128, with our 64!" stuff), but it fails considerably at higher bitrates. I dont know where I heard this, I havnt done tests, so dont warn me or anything. It could very well be wrong, but it does sound like something microsoft would do.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: seanyseansean on 27 June, 2006, 12:06:05 PM
mpc (Musepack) for home collection (-q 5)


Same here. I've taken to backing up my CDs to flac with embedded cue sheets (can I put the album art in there too?), and as of now have 80gb of new CDs that I need to back up. I was going to use the opportunity to change to a more supported codec than musepack but as far as I can see it:

1. I don't understand all the aac variations/encoders, and which is the 'best'. I tried aac on my smartphone and ipod/rockbox and they both sucked power and jumped about, whereas the musepack files playback fine whilst using minimal cpu.

2. I need to transcode to mp3 for my girlfriends player occasionally and i've never had a problem (i.e. an obvious artifact) transcoding from musepack.

3. Ogg again is too slow on smartphone and rockbox, especially compared with mpc.

I'd love to change but where is the obvious replacement? mp3 would be fine but even cloth eared me has ABXd artifacts fairly easily, though admittedly that isn't with the latest lame encoder. I need something thats efficient, easy to encode/decode, supported on smartphone (tcpmp) and rockbox(ipod) that doesn't transcode too badly to mp3.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: Gow on 27 June, 2006, 01:15:58 PM
For lossy in my music folder, Nero AAC 1.0.0.2 (26 May 2006) -q 0.55
Due to it being true VBR AAC. 

OR, Ogg aoTuV -q 6.0 ...can't decide on which to go with as Rockbox or native support is keeping me up in the air.

All CDs are ripped to a single wavpack file with cue sheet and eac log, than burnt to DVDs for backup of my audio collection.  Than later I can take the archive, pop it in foobar200 and convert to whatever lossy format catches my listening fancy.  With the lossless backup I am not stuck or feel confined to a single format. 

Just using Nero AAC at the moment due to its VBR and my possible DAP will be an iPod...though the Cowon iAudio X5L is nice too.  Pretty much the reason I have been making a lossless audio archive my music collection to save me the hassle of being stuck.

- Gow

Edit: Added in my ogg support
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: Lashiec on 27 June, 2006, 01:45:28 PM
Vorbis here! I've been using the format since 2002, and I won't stop using it, unless there's a major catastrophe leaving AAC as the only survivor. In that case, I have FLAC copies of the files
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: kotekzot on 27 June, 2006, 06:22:18 PM
lame 3.97 apx. excellent compatibility and quality.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: rlbest on 27 June, 2006, 10:22:01 PM
I encode my vast collection of harpsichord music at 5kbps Blade MP3 and it sounds AWESOME!
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: Firon on 28 June, 2006, 12:16:06 AM
You should at least pick a real bitrate, the lowest MP3 can go is 8.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: rlbest on 28 June, 2006, 12:24:23 AM
You should at least pick a real bitrate, the lowest it can go is 8.


Not MY version of the Blade encoder. It can go as low as -20. Of course, you can't hear anything and the tracks start sucking bits out of other songs. And then the universe implodes. So it's best to go with a positive number.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: Cygnus X1 on 28 June, 2006, 01:33:11 AM
Only ATRAC3plus @ 48kbps for me. I transcode my 192kbps MP1 files, created in 1999 with the DIST-10 derived SoloX encoder, to 128kbps Blade MP3 (full stereo, to preserve intra-instrument space and airiness), as to be imported into SonicStage for encoding to ATRAC. (Sonicstage only supports Layer 3 files). They sound even better than my CDs! The smooth, liquid midrange is still present in the ATRAC encodings, which still manage to convey a tremendous sense of timing and musicality.

Seriously, I just stick with LAME -V2 (nee "preset standard) as I've done for years. If it isn’t broke, don't fix it 
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: zachastrife on 28 June, 2006, 02:08:05 AM
Only ATRAC3plus @ 48kbps for me. I transcode my 192kbps MP1 files, created in 1999 with the DIST-10 derived SoloX encoder, to 128kbps Blade MP3 (full stereo, to preserve intra-instrument space and airiness), as to be imported into SonicStage for encoding to ATRAC. (Sonicstage only supports Layer 3 files). They sound even better than my CDs! The smooth, liquid midrange is still present in the ATRAC encodings, which still manage to convey a tremendous sense of timing and musicality.

Seriously, I just stick with LAME -V2 (nee "preset standard) as I've done for years. If it isn’t broke, don't fix it 

Ah, you scared me there.

Although I have NEVER found any fault with ATRAC (Just ATRAC3 and plus, those two versions suck)
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: pepoluan on 28 June, 2006, 01:56:56 PM
With the soon-to-be-released newer Vorbis tunings from Aoyumi, and Nero's reference AAC encoder, do you think we ought to start a new lossy poll perhaps sometime in August?
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: Acid8000 on 29 June, 2006, 01:48:11 AM
Switched to ripping to MP3 no more than a week ago. No longer ripping CDs to Musepack.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: shadowking on 29 June, 2006, 02:56:42 AM
Wavpack 320~350 k ,  transcoded to LAME 3.98a6 -V5 for portable, correction files backed up to DVD.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: zorba on 29 June, 2006, 04:11:54 AM
others : wavpack

Wavpack 400kb ,  transcoded to LAME 3.97b2 -V5 for portable, no more correction files

I don't rip lossless any longer, I think future will bring secure autoripping players (put your cd in the box, wait, ...done)
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: audiomars on 29 June, 2006, 05:03:05 AM
MP3: Lame 3.98a6 -V2. I do not use a portable player but if I did, I would use Lame3.98a6 -V5. Gapless is very important for me and AAC does not cut it.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: InnocenceMyth on 29 June, 2006, 01:12:17 PM
Not MY version of the Blade encoder. It can go as low as -20. Of course, you can't hear anything and the tracks start sucking bits out of other songs. And then the universe implodes. So it's best to go with a positive number.





That's hysterical - an encoder or setting so bad the resulting file degrades the songs around it.  We could try to hack that into Windows Media Player.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: pepoluan on 30 June, 2006, 04:30:15 PM
 You mean, WMP is not already doing that right now? 
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: The Sheep of DEATH on 07 October, 2006, 01:32:07 PM
WMA10Pro b2 for me, either at 64kbps 2-pass VBR or 25% Quality Mode (75kbps?).  Note: Not the so-called "WMAPro+" variation that you can rip to in the WMP11 options.

I guess it sound pretty much fine on my Pocket PC, which is where I listen to my music.  Too bad the codec can't be benchmarked or anything because it sounds ... like... something I didn't expect from Microsoft, that's for sure.  I sometimes mux it into my OGM video files as the audiotrack.  (Did you know that WMA10Pro in .ogg is smaller than the original WMA?!  )
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: Andrea on 07 October, 2006, 08:51:45 PM
Used to be OGG, but since I bought a mac and I have an external medialibrary, I reencoded everything to mp3. However, I keep my favourite artist (Enigma) in FLAC/ALAC
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: kurtnoise on 08 October, 2006, 09:31:20 AM
Did you know that WMA10Pro in .ogg is smaller than the original WMA?!

due to the overhead...
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: Jillian on 08 October, 2006, 10:00:34 AM
WMA10Pro for me too. I can't wait for wmp11b3 or rc or real version because I can't decode 32kbps@44.1khz 16bits stereo.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: kl33per on 08 October, 2006, 10:07:58 AM
Well I was an adamant AAC supporter (and have been for years, even way back right to Ivan's original codec), but I've switched back to MP3 because of Microsoft's non-existent MP4 support.  I'm now using WMP11 for playback.  It's just to damn easy to use, doesn't use a huge amount of resources, and requires no setup or tweaking (I haven't got time to fiddle with foobar2000 anymore, as much as I love it).  I'm also using Windows Media Center on my TV, which is what really did MP4 for me.  If MS ever support it (hopefully in the next WMP version - yeah right), I'll go back to it, but for now, I'm back on MP3.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: Junon on 08 October, 2006, 01:34:22 PM
Vorbis with Aoyumi's tunings, at the moment I'm desperately waiting for the release of beta5, heh. I love its decent quality in the low-bitrate regions, the fact it's open source and especially its increasing hardware compatibility - I'm the proud owner of both a portable player and a car stereo which support Vorbis playback. The only drawback is that quite a lot of hardware devices don't support reading of Vorbis comments yet, making management of the audio collection really difficult. Same problem with AAC, by the way, my stupid mobile decodes both LC-AAC and HE-AAC, but it doesn't read the goddamn mp4 tags.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: michael.conner on 08 October, 2006, 01:57:24 PM
Used to be Lame -V 1 or 2 --vbr-new before I discovered ABX tests.  Now I do Lame -V 4 and iTunes AAC vbr 128.  MP3 encodes faster on my machine than AAC, so it really depends on how much I'm encoding at a time.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: rudefyet on 08 October, 2006, 02:16:04 PM
I've switched between Vorbis, AAC, and MP3 all year long, unable to settle on one possibility

But after struggling with different formats and their compatibility issues, I have inevitably switched back to MP3.

At least until WMP11/Media Center supports AAC, since I use media center on my home theather system.

-V 5 --vbr-new is my current setting of course
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: Billy007 on 08 October, 2006, 02:47:00 PM
wavpack
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: Landus on 20 October, 2006, 06:10:31 PM
Vorbis. The files are smaller @ q6 than MP3 @ 192Kb/s and my ears can't tell the difference between the two.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: bhoar on 20 October, 2006, 07:42:43 PM
Vorbis. The files are smaller @ q6 than MP3 @ 192Kb/s and my ears can't tell the difference between the two.


TOS #8.

Granted, I don't think enforcement is pushed for when you say you *can't* hear a difference. 

-brendan
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: EagleScout1998 on 20 October, 2006, 10:15:09 PM
Well.... for my archive I am re-ripping to FLAC (a project I estimate will take at least six months). For my iPod, I am sticking with MP3 (although I am debating between sticking with CBR 192 or VBR).
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: indybrett on 20 October, 2006, 11:10:54 PM
I've switched a few times.  I like Vorbis on my modded iRiver, but my car and gym player are MP3 only.  So, it's MP3 for me, just so I only need one library of lossy files, which is already over 70GB. 

My home stuff is all FLAC.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: Landus on 21 October, 2006, 12:30:44 PM
Vorbis. The files are smaller @ q6 than MP3 @ 192Kb/s and my ears can't tell the difference between the two.


TOS #8.

Granted, I don't think enforcement is pushed for when you say you *can't* hear a difference. 

-brendan

This is asking for opinions. Therefore, that rule doesn't apply.

If that was a official comment, then yes, you'd be right.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: bhoar on 21 October, 2006, 01:43:33 PM
Ok.  Mostly I was joking, I feel bad that it didn't come across that way.

-brendan
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: alleyoopster on 22 October, 2006, 02:22:17 PM
mp3 (lame) just because I my ipod is still working - otherwise it would be ogg
flac for cd archive
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: krikke on 22 October, 2006, 05:09:16 PM
My choice is MP3, because like many others, my DAP only plays this format 
I'm already using OGG on my mobile (64mb) and absolutely (!) love the format, so much quality at medium bitrates, can't be better.

I'm also testing the "new" aac+ format, and it's even better then ogg, so if my future DAP will support AAC+, time for mp3/ogg is over
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: Junon on 22 October, 2006, 05:20:48 PM
I'm also testing the "new" aac+ format, and it's even better then ogg, so if my future DAP will support AAC+, time for mp3/ogg is over


Don't be too fast concerning that decision. The SBR part of AAC+ and MP3Pro is a real power eater. At least in the case of MP3Pro power consumption is 300% compared to regular MP3 decoding (http://www.mp3-tech.org/sbr.html), which can be an extreme annoyance since it drastically lowers a portable's battery life. Too bad I haven't found any reliable sources about SBR and the processing power it needs in conjunction with AAC instead of MP3.

Edit: Please note that the source I posted is quite outdated. More current SBR decoders might be more efficient than the one mentioned by Gabriel.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: chrisgeleven on 22 October, 2006, 08:09:09 PM
MP3 (LAME 3.97 V 3)

Best compromise for bitrates (usually 150-170 for my music), encoding time, and compatibility. Sounds fantastic in my car and on my iPod nano.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: vinnie97 on 23 October, 2006, 12:40:33 AM
Still lovin' Vorbis here with my JVC head unit (via USB port), Ipod Nano (with Rockbox) and Iaudio5. :)

Not concerned with AAC until AAC+ becomes widely supported on DAPs of all makes and sizes.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: profoX on 12 November, 2006, 05:41:59 PM
I am proud to say that I always use ogg vorbis when I encode music from CD's on my pc.
For one, it is the only lossy format that works by default on most linux distributions,
and two, quality is just.. better
oh, and three, it's completely open source, how cool is that.. 

The reason that I don't really need MP3 is that I don't have an MP3 player anymore, and I am looking forward to buy a small media device that is able to play ogg vorbis... maybe a gp2x.. those things are pretty cool.. and not so expensive.. and they run on embedded linux  http://www.gp2x.com/ (http://www.gp2x.com/)
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: Piffles on 13 November, 2006, 12:56:46 PM
MP3 because, when used intelligently, it does everything I need from an audio codec: good compression, decent  sound quality, normalizing possibilities and widespread support.  Why change?
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: Firon on 13 November, 2006, 04:57:33 PM
Don't be too fast concerning that decision. The SBR part of AAC+ and MP3Pro is a real power eater. At least in the case of MP3Pro power consumption is 300% compared to regular MP3 decoding (http://www.mp3-tech.org/sbr.html), which can be an extreme annoyance since it drastically lowers a portable's battery life. Too bad I haven't found any reliable sources about SBR and the processing power it needs in conjunction with AAC instead of MP3.


I remember reading someone's post on HA that there was a lower complexity SBR decoder (at the cost of some "accuracy") for HE-AAC. Whether it was true or not, I don't know. Plus, optimizations can go a long way, it might not be 300% anymore for modern HE-AAC decoders.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: Robbie on 14 November, 2006, 05:07:13 AM
I prefer to use FLAC, but when I use lossy I use MP3 - based entirely on compatibility rather than best sound quality or compression ratios - I know I can pretty much play mp3 files anywhere on anything.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: HE-Dave on 15 November, 2006, 03:06:53 PM
I use Nero AAC (~400 kbps) to rip my CDs (2,000+ tracks).  I used to use Vorbis, but changed my mind when I discovered that I could ABX it at 320 kbps.  The non-ripped portion of my collection (~400 tracks) is mostly Mp3 though.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: de Mon on 15 November, 2006, 03:29:13 PM
I use Nero AAC (~400 kbps) to rip my CDs (2,000+ tracks).  I used to use Vorbis, but changed my mind when I discovered that I could ABX it at 320 kbps.  The non-ripped portion of my collection (~400 tracks) is mostly Mp3 though.


Please provide some samples where 320 kbs (-q9) Ogg Vorbis is ABXable and other coders do well? I think it will be very interesting.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: HE-Dave on 15 November, 2006, 03:54:27 PM

I use Nero AAC (~400 kbps) to rip my CDs (2,000+ tracks).  I used to use Vorbis, but changed my mind when I discovered that I could ABX it at 320 kbps.  The non-ripped portion of my collection (~400 tracks) is mostly Mp3 though.


Please provide some samples where 320 kbs (-q9) Ogg Vorbis is ABXable and other coders do well? I think it will be very interesting.


Well, it happened on a very broad range of music, including older jazz recordings, pop, classic rock, and modern rock.  The problem I noticed was the treble boost that was apparent at lower bitrates was still slightly noticeable even at 320.  This was a couple of years ago, but about a week ago I was able to ABX (20/20) samples encoded with aoTuV beta 5.

FYI, I'm 17; I don't listen to extraordinarily loud music or anything, and have no trouble hearing >20kHz tones.  I think that's probably the reason.  If you insist, I'll provide some examples... err... whenever I get the chance. 
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: HE-Dave on 15 November, 2006, 09:38:20 PM
EDIT: Aaaand I just realized I linked to copyrighted material with this post.  Can't have that.  It WAS a listening test... so I'll have to redo it with some royalty-free music.

Sorry, guys. 
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: de Mon on 16 November, 2006, 07:22:13 PM
EDIT: Aaaand I just realized I linked to copyrighted material with this post.  Can't have that.  It WAS a listening test... so I'll have to redo it with some royalty-free music.

Sorry, guys. 


If you provide <30 sec samples there will be no crime IMHO. Anyway you state you are capable of listening >20 kHz (:-O how old are you? 1-2?) - there is no point in this statement since at -q9 Ogg Vorbis lowpass must work fine. Can you explain what kind of artifacts did you listen out? And by the way I hope you used the latest version of Ogg Vorbis (at least 'aoTuV 2') and not the 1.0 version.
And finaly - at this bitrate all the leading encoders are equaly transparent.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: HE-Dave on 16 November, 2006, 09:36:35 PM
30-second samples!  Good idea.  Stupid mistake on my part, I guess.  Sorry.

As far as the >20kHz thing, sorry if I was misleading, I didn't mean to imply that the artifacts were above 20kHz (and that for some reason Vorbis decided to stop using a lowpass.)  I was just trying to give you an idea of the quality of my hearing, which in my opinion is quite good.

For the listening test I did yesterday (the one I removed), I actually used the most recent Xiph.org codec because I was on a different computer and was too lazy to download aoTuV.  When I get the chance to redo this, I'll be sure to download it.  That test was actually at -q10 (~500 kbps) and I scored 19/20.

The 500 kbps (Xiph.org) test was MUCH harder than the 320 kbps (auTuV beta 5) test I had recently performed.  The distortion I heard was a boost of high frequencies (very early parts of hi-hat / cymbal strokes) and an Mp3-like warbling effect in those same frequencies.

Don't try to pull that all-encoders-are-transparent-above-a-certain-bitrate stuff.  Different encoders are transparent to different people at different bitrates for a variety of reasons.

I'll do another listening test for you all when I get a chance, but I'm very busy at school lately.  Until then, you kind of just have to trust that I wouldn't post a claim as big as this if it were false.  This is a community; everything posted in it should benefit the topic in some way.

-Dave
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: skelly831 on 16 November, 2006, 10:04:10 PM
As far as the >20kHz thing, sorry if I was misleading, I didn't mean to imply that the artifacts were above 20kHz (and that for some reason Vorbis decided to stop using a lowpass.)  I was just trying to give you an idea of the quality of my hearing, which in my opinion is quite good.

For the listening test I did yesterday (the one I removed), I actually used the most recent Xiph.org codec because I was on a different computer and was too lazy to download aoTuV.  When I get the chance to redo this, I'll be sure to download it.  That test was actually at -q10 (~500 kbps) and I scored 19/20.

  Impressive.

EDIT: That claim about your hearing is also impressive.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: mat128 on 26 November, 2006, 09:09:35 PM
Lame MP3 

My reason: its compatible with everything out there!
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: vulc44n on 30 November, 2006, 05:30:55 PM
I transcode flac to either lame MP3 or OGG as needed.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: HbG on 30 November, 2006, 06:09:57 PM
I do the same.

And encoding to OGG is so much faster.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: atrac on 05 December, 2006, 11:54:31 AM
hi guys,

as you see I'm new to this forum.

I voted ''other''.

For my music collection I use atrac3/atrac3+.

I think it's the most underrated and surpressed format. Sony won't 'release' it and normal people, who don't use sonicstage or don't own a walkman, always understimate it.

atrac3 is just a great codec for overall audio. It has a very cmfy sound to it. I can't explain it (I know this is not convincing evidence but then I'm not trying to convince any-one ).

atrac3+ has it all: it has 320/352 Kbps bitrates and it sounds stunning, it has a normal (I call it 'medium') 160/192 Kbps bitrate wich still surprises me every time I listen to it and last but not least the trusty 64 Kbps bitrate, this makes my files approx. 2 MB in size and soundquality is very comfy. overall I think atrac sounds natural and warm, with a comfy sense of space in it. I'd mind you that I'm not an audio technicus or anything, but just an audio enthousiast

I must say, I always hated MP3 because of it's awfull sound, but since I've met LAME 3.96 I think MP3 is all-right for now. But it just doesn't sound as warm and comfy as atrac does. I even might encode my music to LAME, but its such a pain in the *** to convert them with EAC because it takes soooooo damn long. But the results EAC give are very very good, I have to say.

PS: all stated above is just my OWN (SUBJECTIVE) OPINION, based on my OWN (SUBJECTIVE) EXPERIENCES. son these ar NO facts at all!!!

greetz
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: dutch109 on 05 December, 2006, 12:58:18 PM
hi guys,

as you see I'm new to this forum.

I voted ''other''.

For my music collection I use atrac3/atrac3+.

I think it's the most underrated and surpressed format. Sony won't 'release' it and normal people, who don't use sonicstage or don't own a walkman, always understimate it.

atrac3 is just a great codec for overall audio. It has a very cmfy sound to it. I can't explain it (I know this is not convincing evidence but then I'm not trying to convince any-one ).

atrac3+ has it all: it has 320/352 Kbps bitrates and it sounds stunning, it has a normal (I call it 'medium') 160/192 Kbps bitrate wich still surprises me every time I listen to it and last but not least the trusty 64 Kbps bitrate, this makes my files approx. 2 MB in size and soundquality is very comfy. overall I think atrac sounds natural and warm, with a comfy sense of space in it. I'd mind you that I'm not an audio technicus or anything, but just an audio enthousiast

I must say, I always hated MP3 because of it's awfull sound, but since I've met LAME 3.96 I think MP3 is all-right for now. But it just doesn't sound as warm and comfy as atrac does. I even might encode my music to LAME, but its such a pain in the *** to convert them with EAC because it takes soooooo damn long. But the results EAC give are very very good, I have to say.

greetz


You should read TOS #8 (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=3974#entry149481).
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: Mercurio on 05 December, 2006, 01:04:57 PM
Wellcome to Hydrogenaudio, atrac.

If you search a bit here I'm sure you will find a lot of discussions and tests about atrac.

This community tries  to do its best not to spread "bad" informations, so when you post something like that someone will tell you to read the rules of the forum 
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: atrac on 05 December, 2006, 01:40:44 PM
Wellcome to Hydrogenaudio, atrac.

If you search a bit here I'm sure you will find a lot of discussions and tests about atrac.

This community tries  to do its best not to spread "bad" informations, so when you post something like that someone will tell you to read the rules of the forum 


Oww, yeah..you right. I'm sorry :$

normally I make clear that it's just my own (subjective) opinion. I've changed that now

@ dutch109:

sorry to you to, I forgot to state that it was my opinion. I completely agree with TOS#8, and I think this is very important on forums like this. I think this is a very good forum, and would never want to mess things up here, so therefore my excuses.

I assume that it is allowed to give your own opinion, as long as you make clear that it's your opinion, and not a fact or something? (like I did now)

thx for the tips ^^

greetz
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: Garf on 05 December, 2006, 01:52:46 PM
There is nothing that says that TOS8 does not apply to "opinions". Stating something stupid and then trying to get around TOS8 by saying "thats just my opinion" is a no-go.

You should be able to substantiate your opinion, so we can understand it, and decide it's not something you just made up while high on crack. Because if it's the latter, it has no place here.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: atrac on 05 December, 2006, 02:12:02 PM
@ garf:

I said that my opinion was based on my OWN experiences. I think it should be all-right for one to express his opinion, making clear that it's based on HIS OWN experiences. damn, people fight about these things man......

I thought (excuse me if I'm wrong) that this topic was about your favourite lossy codec. Well, I just explained why I choose atrac. Do I really have to come up with a whole explanation, based on true facts and everything just to make clear why I choose that one???? I just like it, and I've just explained WHY I like it, and mentioned that it's just MY opinion.

so again: sorry that I messed things up in the first post.

greetz
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: NeoRenegade on 05 December, 2006, 03:14:41 PM
@ garf:

I said that my opinion was based on my OWN experiences. I think it should be all-right for one to express his opinion, making clear that it's based on HIS OWN experiences. damn, people fight about these things man......

I thought (excuse me if I'm wrong) that this topic was about your favourite lossy codec. Well, I just explained why I choose atrac. Do I really have to come up with a whole explanation, based on true facts and everything just to make clear why I choose that one???? I just like it, and I've just explained WHY I like it, and mentioned that it's just MY opinion.

so again: sorry that I messed things up in the first post.

greetz
And your opinion is silly and full of nonsense. Thumbs up to Garf for telling it like it is. If it had been me, I'm sure he would have some harsh words for me.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: atrac on 05 December, 2006, 03:26:04 PM
@ neorenegade:

It's YOUR opinion that my opinion is full of nonsense. again: I said that my opinion is NOT based on true facts, tests or something like that. But it just explaines why I choose atrac over other lossy codecs, so that people understand why I prefer it.

greetz
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: memomai on 05 December, 2006, 04:35:06 PM
Quote
@ neorenegade:

It's YOUR opinion that my opinion is full of nonsense. again: I said that my opinion is NOT based on true facts, tests or something like that. But it just explaines why I choose atrac over other lossy codecs, so that people understand why I prefer it.

greetz


making such posts is wasting space on HA.org's server and makes the discussion forum unclearly. The readers don't want to know your favorite meal or your life's story. HA.org's aim is to support codec-devs. If you want to tell somebody what your dog's name is or why you extremely love atrac and HATE MP3, then make your own homepage where you can write what you want (I'm looking at you gameplaya *lol*)

Short: Make posts based on true events which help readers posters and devs coming to their aim. See HA rules.

By the way: MP3 too  ... still the only codec which every little cheap player supports. Your girl/boyfriend wants to hear a cd of you? Give him/her the album in MP3 and you don't need to worry the person can't play the tracks. See, even Windows Media Player can play MP3 *lol*
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: atrac on 05 December, 2006, 04:54:37 PM
making such posts is wasting space on HA.org's server and makes the discussion forum unclearly. The readers don't want to know your favorite meal or your life's story. HA.org's aim is to support codec-devs. If you want to tell somebody what your dog's name is or why you extremely love atrac and HATE MP3, then make your own homepage where you can write what you want (I'm looking at you gameplaya *lol*)

Short: Make posts based on true events which help readers posters and devs coming to their aim. See HA rules.

By the way: MP3 too  ... still the only codec which every little cheap player supports. Your girl/boyfriend wants to hear a cd of you? Give him/her the album in MP3 and you don't need to worry the person can't play the tracks. See, even Windows Media Player can play MP3 *lol*


you're right. it's a waste of space, these discussions. but I really don't understand what the fuss is about....
they ask me what codec I prefer, I say it's atrac, I just simply explain why I love it, and then I get all these kinda pissed attitude reactions. I've stayed correct, nice and appologised for it.

so I just tell Why I love atrac, and they say it's a waste of space, violating rules, stupid nonsense and everything...and the post of neorenegade is not a problem at all?!

I just don't understand...

greetz 
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: beto on 05 December, 2006, 06:10:32 PM
@atrac

Don't mind the harshness of some people. That's how things are at HA. The aim is to keep a healthy and sane environment for everyone.

Your past claims are full of misconceptions and I think that it triggered a red flag. When you claim that ATRAC is  "warmer and natural" and that MP3 is not that "warm and natural" without providing hard evidence (ABX) you open room for questioning because most likely you are a victim of the placebo effect.

It is a good thing you apologized, however stating that it is your personal opinion does not give you clearance to state unproven things about one or other codec. 

Anyway don't take the harsh posts personally. It is just how it is here.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: Mercurio on 05 December, 2006, 09:05:56 PM
I fully quote beto.

Also, atrac, I suggest you to try yourself some blinded tests. It is very fun and with foobar it is very simple.

If you do them, I'm sure you will see all the whole story under a very different view, and maybe you will understand because many people here doesn't like post like the first yours.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: memomai on 06 December, 2006, 09:17:09 AM
Quote
Anyway don't take the harsh posts personally. It is just how it is here.


yep. 
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: audioaficionado on 18 December, 2006, 12:35:12 AM
MP3

I played around with EAC/Nero ACC and loved the results but LAME is still my favorite lossy format.  However my at home listening is almost exclusively WavPack lossless.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: peter312 on 19 December, 2006, 11:48:55 AM
I have voted "other", as I am currently using Atrac Lossless 352kbps as it allows me to do the following:
  • store and listen to lossless tracks on my PC
  • convert those lossless files to WAV files and then burn them to Audio CD via Nero. (I know this might not be necessary, as SonicStage can burn Audio CD's - It's just that I like Nero [v6]).
  • transfer gapless lossy files (in my case 352kbps) to my portable of choice (a Hi-MD player), without having to convert the lossless files

I also do create MP3's (Lame) using EAC for my wife's MP3 CD's for the car  at 256kbps (as the player struggles with VBR) and V5 for my childrens' ipod/MP3 player/mobile phone. MP3 seems to have enough votes though! 

Sorry for rattling on.

Cheers

Peter
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: pepoluan on 19 December, 2006, 03:23:03 PM
I also do create MP3's (Lame) using EAC for my wife's MP3 CD's for the car  at 256kbps (as the player struggles with VBR) and V5 for my childrens' ipod/MP3 player/mobile phone. MP3 seems to have enough votes though! 
I think CBR 256 is way overkill, especially in a car. You can use CBR 128, or CBR 192 for added peace of mind. That's 50% and 25% space saving, respectively.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: n3tfury on 19 December, 2006, 03:53:52 PM
most of my collection is FLAC>.mp3 but recently have been using Nero's AAC because I LIKE IT.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: peter312 on 19 December, 2006, 04:46:08 PM
I also do create MP3's (Lame) using EAC for my wife's MP3 CD's for the car  at 256kbps (as the player struggles with VBR) and V5 for my childrens' ipod/MP3 player/mobile phone. MP3 seems to have enough votes though! 
I think CBR 256 is way overkill, especially in a car. You can use CBR 128, or CBR 192 for added peace of mind. That's 50% and 25% space saving, respectively.


I wouldn't disagree with you. It's just that my wife only wants so many albums on a CD Rom and I might as well use a higher bit rate, rather than leave a load of empty space. She also sometimes plays them on a CD MP3 Walkman.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: chri5 on 25 December, 2006, 04:24:52 AM
.mp3 (lame) for me. Also .flac for lossless when needed.
Title: Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?
Post by: Synthetic Soul on 02 January, 2007, 03:10:16 AM
Poll closed.  Please take a look at the latest poll (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=51493).