Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Revitalize the ***** (Read 5867 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Revitalize the *****

I remember the day I discovered the **** Standard. It was the day I vowed I would never again pay hard-earned money for compressed audio downloads when I do so much better on my own for just about the same price. It was my first step toward becoming an audiophile. I've still got a long way to go (I just discovered foobar2000 the other day), but I had hoped that the **** Standard would grow along with everything else.

Granted I've now discovered the HydrogenAudio forums to shephard me with mountains of knowledge and advice and opinions . . . but standards for this kind of thing are important, and I think most would agree on that point. That said, my most beloved standard seems to have been abandoned. Much of the knowledge base leads to dead links and given that the site hasn't been updated in forever it makes one wonder if the recommendations of EAC 0.9b4 and LAME 3.90.3 are really the best or just the best at that time of writing.

Feel free to discuss on whatever track your mind goes off on - that's the point of this post.

Moderation: no mention of illegal ripping groups

Revitalize the *****

Reply #1 –
This has been brought up a million of times before. I don't care at all for any P2P or ripping group recommendation , as they mean nothing to me. Myself and many others here spend lots of time actualy testing audio codecs. The current LAME 3.97b2 recommendation is based on such tests.

The ---standard and other release group recommendations are outdated and seem to hold a grudge against recent LAME development  - in their minds LAME is more 'dangerous' since the original developer left etc etc.

Really, I've had it up to here with these groups. People should be free to use whatever versions they like, but to preach unfounded BS over the internet like many of them do is absurd.

Revitalize the *****

Reply #2 –
Several standards are made by people you won't see in any listening test or that won't never bother to communicate their own tests to other people.

That's pretty simple: the more a standard is fanatic, the less the author is competent for talking about audio quality. Why? Simply because reality isn't in paint pure black and white. Have you ever spent time to evaluate audio encoders? If no, do it. The first lesson you'll learn is that best formats are not always better, than so-called "crap" encoders could sometimes reveal interesting performance. The "best" status is often very fragile and is rarely unequivocal - even for a single listener. With multiple listeners the reality will look even less unequivocal and should forbid any kind of "standard" which are fanatic by essence.

On HA.org, ripping "standard" are replaced by "recommendations" which are more subtle, less certain and definitely ephemeral. It's more an indication based on a given level of certainety. Recommendations are maybe less sexy and fascinating than "standards" that give to newbies the feeling to access to the absolute truth about audio quality... which is plain wrong of course.
Wavpack Hybrid: one encoder for all scenarios
WavPack -c4.5hx6 (44100Hz & 48000Hz) ≈ 390 kbps + correction file
WavPack -c4hx6 (96000Hz) ≈ 768 kbps + correction file
WavPack -h (SACD & DSD) ≈ 2400 kbps at 2.8224 MHz

Revitalize the *****

Reply #3 –
Quote from: shadowking on
I don't care at all for any P2P or ripping group recommendation , as they mean nothing to me. Myself and many others here spend lots of time actualy testing audio codecs.


I have a profound amount of respect for the audiophiles/audio g33ks/audio gurus that spend time actually doing the scientific research on this. I wish I were so talented. But I'm not. And while many people who use these forums may be, there are also many people who use these forums (and untold thousands more that don't) that have no idea how to go about doing that. It does not necessarily follow, however, that those of us without technical knowledge do not have a keen/demanding ear for sound. What are people like me to do on your advice? Twist in the wind? That hardly sounds fair, and is more-or-less contradictory to the purpose of a public knowledge base like HydrogenAudio.

Also, standards are how the scientific community gets things done. They're good enough for the IEEE, why not you guys? You think the standards out there suck? Don't just throw sticks and stones - help make one worth a damn.

Edit: @guruboolez
That does make sense, and I am indeed showing my ignorance in saying that that's an angle I had not considered. Would you at least agree that something like the presentation at **** is at least very decent and suitable for many needs, if not all?

Moderation: No links or mention of specific illegal ripping groups. Thanks!

Revitalize the *****

Reply #4 –
Quote from: Zelbinian on
Quote from: shadowking on

I don't care at all for any P2P or ripping group recommendation , as they mean nothing to me. Myself and many others here spend lots of time actualy testing audio codecs.


It does not necessarily follow, however, that those of us without technical knowledge do not have a keen/demanding ear for sound. What are people like me to do on your advice? Twist in the wind?


Moderation: No links or mention of specific illegal ripping groups. Thanks!


The FAQ is good place to start.

Revitalize the *****

Reply #5 –
Hydrogenaudio recommendations can be found in the sticky threads on top of subforums.

AAC : http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showforum=13
MP3 : http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showforum=15
MPC : http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showforum=11
Vorbis : http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showforum=8

Listening tests between formats can be found here : http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?ti...ltiformat_Tests
And here : http://www.rjamorim.com/test/index.html

Revitalize the *****

Reply #6 –
Quote from: Zelbinian on
Would you at least agree that something like the presentation at **** is at least very decent and suitable for many needs, if not all?

In one sense, probably. What really annoying is, is that several users will quickly turn into fanatic parrots, blaming other people for not exactly follow the Holy Super/Über/Maxi Standard, refusing any change or even the idea of progress, are constantly invoking ABX and science but without perfoming any test, etc...
The list of (dead) idols is constantly growing: Fhg "Radium" CBR 192 dual stereo, r3mix, 3.90.x, MPC... They are/were blindly followed by people that are 100% convinced to make the world better but who are only fooling themsleves, other users and finally ruining the (real) effort of developers. In one word: propaganda instead of enlightenment.
Wavpack Hybrid: one encoder for all scenarios
WavPack -c4.5hx6 (44100Hz & 48000Hz) ≈ 390 kbps + correction file
WavPack -c4hx6 (96000Hz) ≈ 768 kbps + correction file
WavPack -h (SACD & DSD) ≈ 2400 kbps at 2.8224 MHz

Revitalize the *****

Reply #7 –
Yes, I see your point of view now. It seems my knowledge of this forum is as ignorant as my knowledge of the inner workings of encoding technologies. I had done a thorough search on this topic before I posted, but I should've checked the FAQ's first.

Incidently, I probably would have ended up posting this anyway. I never took *unmentionable*'s word as absolute law, but their process did make my mp3's sound better. Perhaps what was the most helpful about them was that all the knowledge that you needed to make a very decent sounding compressed audio file was all in once place, compact, concise, and easy to understand.

Perhaps then, it's not a standard that is needed, but an easier way for everyone to access recommendations. Having Pio2001 post those links in one small post, for example, makes the information much easier to assimilate.

Edit: @guruboolez
A very good point. Again, presentation and organization of information is every bit as important as the information itself. They represented themself as an end-all, be-all solution, and naturally some people are going to be taken in by that. I know I was. But then, there's a point of enlightenment for everyone, isn't there?

Revitalize the *****

Reply #8 –
Quote from: Zelbinian on
Incidently, I probably would have ended up posting this anyway. I never took *unmentionable*'s word as absolute law, but their process did make my mp3's sound better. Perhaps what was the most helpful about them was that all the knowledge that you needed to make a very decent sounding compressed audio file was all in once place, compact, concise, and easy to understand.
  What is it with everyone not bothering to check out HA Wiki?? 

Revitalize the *****

Reply #9 –
Quote from: pepoluan on
Quote from: Zelbinian on
Incidently, I probably would have ended up posting this anyway. I never took *unmentionable*'s word as absolute law, but their process did make my mp3's sound better. Perhaps what was the most helpful about them was that all the knowledge that you needed to make a very decent sounding compressed audio file was all in once place, compact, concise, and easy to understand.
  What is it with everyone not bothering to check out HA Wiki?? 


Agreed, but imo the wiki is insufficiently integrated into the portal and it's not like "HA knowledge project" oozes of hotness

Revitalize the *****

Reply #10 –
Quote from: pepoluan on
What is it with everyone not bothering to check out HA Wiki?? 


I have checked out the HA Wiki for other purposes, most noteably for help setting up foobar2000. It wasn't nearly as helpful as I would've expected a site that looks just like wikipedia to be. Broken links and outdated information abound. Once I found Brother John's tutorial I was all right, but that was only after a solid 2-3 hours of searching the wiki and the web.

Perhaps this is the exception and not the rule? I'll give it the benefit of the doubt and consult it on further inquiries.

Revitalize the *****

Reply #11 –
Quote from: pepoluan on
What is it with everyone not bothering to check out HA Wiki?? 

Because it is klugely organized and hard to navigate, I can't find anything about recommended settings there. Oh and before someone will try to play a wise guy and point to a wiki page, that still doesn't change the fact that I couldn't find it. (I doubt I'm alone in this) This is why I just browse forums and stopped visiting site when it was switched to wiki front, and was very happy when portal was brought back. I don't understand that thing, it's only useful if you know what you are looking for, n00bs by definition don't.
The Plan Within Plans

Revitalize the *****

Reply #12 –
Quote from: lexor on
Because it is klugely organized and hard to navigate, I can't find anything about recommended settings there. Oh and before someone will try to play a wise guy and point to a wiki page, that still doesn't change the fact that I couldn't find it. (I doubt I'm alone in this) This is why I just browse forums and stopped visiting site when it was switched to wiki front, and was very happy when portal was brought back. I don't understand that thing, it's only useful if you know what you are looking for, n00bs by definition don't.
Well (for me, at least), the Main Page of the HA wiki (i.e. the one you see when you click on that there "Wiki" link) seems to already give pointers. And there's that wonderful search thingy... 

Granted, it is a bit unclear e.g. how do I configure my system/setup/encoder/whathaveyou to produce best/smallest/weirdest/etc. file with X encoding technology. Hm, maybe will rewrite that.

I agree, though that visiting the site should point first to the portal, however don't dis the wiki.

You see, wiki's are produced by enthusiasts willing to share their knowledge  Rarely is an enthusiast also a librarian, or a technical manual editor. Which is why we wikieditors greatly rely on input from all of you, wikireaders. I mean, we wrote a page, and since it fits exactly to the way we think, we thought it looks good. Unfortunately, what's good enough for one may be severely unacceptable to others. In such case do take the time either to (1) Edit the wiki to your liking, or (2) Suggest/advise/complain/blab/snerk/flame/bitch/etc about it openly in the "Wiki Discussion" forum (accessible through the dropdown box on northeast or click here)

Peace, bro! 

Edit: I remembered posting on a thread somewhere about advantages of wiki vs advantages of thread. Both have their uses, neither can replace the other. Mostly related to Original Posters, updates, corrections, and somesuch. Let me see if I can find it. (You are also welcome to join me in this quest  )
 

Revitalize the *****

Reply #14 –
Quote from: Zelbinian on
Also, standards are how the scientific community gets things done. They're good enough for the IEEE, why not you guys? You think the standards out there suck? Don't just throw sticks and stones - help make one worth a damn.


Standards are created to solve problems. MP3 is a standard, so that all "MP3s" can be decoded by all MP3-compatible decoders.

What problem does standardizing on a particular Lame version solve? A 3.90.3 --alt-preset standard file is going to be decodable on all the same hardware as a 3.97b2 --preset fast standard file. Why would you make an effort to standardize on an inferior sound quality? Just for consistency's sake? Seems irrational to me.


This is the sort of standard that SHOULD be used (not that i'm advocating copyright theft):

"VBR mp3s, created by the current Lame version, using the current standard profile (which should result in an average bitrate around 200 kbit/s). Tags should be both ID3v1.1 and ID3v2.3, non-unicode, padded to 1 kb. Ripping should be performed securely - EAC or plextools is recommended."