Skip to main content

Poll

What lossy formats do you use on a *regular* basis?

  • AAC or HE-AAC v1,v2 (.m4a, .aac…)
  • LossyWAV + lossless (.lossy.flac, .lossy.wv, .lossy.tak…)
  • MP3 (.mp3)
  • Musepack (.mpc)
  • Ogg Vorbis (.ogg)
  • Opus (.opus)
  • AC3 Dolby Digital (AC-3, E-AC-3)
  • Other lossy format

Voting closes: 05 December, 2017, 12:23:37 AM

Topic: 2017 Format Poll (lossy codecs)  (Read 8099 times) previous topic - next topic

arkhh and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
  • Porcus
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: 2017 Format Poll (lossy codecs)
Reply #25
I chose Opus just because I like FOSS.

Wouldn't LAME-encoded MP3 qualify now?

  • IgorC
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: 2017 Format Poll (lossy codecs)
Reply #26
it has a dirty past   :D

  • Heliologue
  • [*][*][*]
Re: 2017 Format Poll (lossy codecs)
Reply #27
I chose Opus just because I like FOSS.

Wouldn't LAME-encoded MP3 qualify now?

Now, sure.  Although Opus has the added benefit of being a somewhat more sophisticated codec.

Practically speaking, with perhaps the exception of AAC-via-FAAC, any lossy codec is going to be just fine on a phone with cheap headphones (Kamedo2's 2014 test), so one's choice in this domain is more or less arbitrary.  I'm a Xiph fan, so affiliation drove my choice more than any kind of technical benefits of the codec, per se.

  • soundping
  • [*][*]
Re: 2017 Format Poll (lossy codecs)
Reply #28
I choose .OPUS.  Fine drum symbols and classical string instruments 'seem' to make it to the final product.

"Feel the .opus force flow through your headphones."
I like bacon and .OPUS   :-)

  • Cavaille
  • [*][*][*][*]
Re: 2017 Format Poll (lossy codecs)
Reply #29
The part I don't understand is why you are using hybrid (lossy + correction file). If you are never using the lossy part of your archive, you might as well archive in wavpack lossless, and save several Mb per track at same compression settings...

Well, does the expression "hybrid" in connection with WavPack always mandate the use of a correction file? To my knowledge, WavPack Hybrid also describes lossy compression without correction file. Which is what I use. And the way WavPack Hybrid compresses does not forbid possible transcoding with other codecs :)
  • Last Edit: 13 May, 2017, 04:11:47 PM by Cavaille
marlene-d.blogspot.com

  • Porcus
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: 2017 Format Poll (lossy codecs)
Reply #30
it has a dirty past   :D

I used to be a cheap girl, but now I am free!

  • vibee
  • [*]
Re: 2017 Format Poll (lossy codecs)
Reply #31
Opus (default ~96kbit/s) on my Android device, with GoneMad! Player. Sound reasonable in my car and with my headphones, and makes anything fit on my 64GB SD-card.

  • DonP
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Members (Donating)
Re: 2017 Format Poll (lossy codecs)
Reply #32
Anything that goes to google play or thumb drive on the car system is mp3 because that's what they like.
Stored directly on phone are generally Opus.
Most of what's in the music folder on the PC is still vorbis, but haven't been encoding in that for a few years.

  • majavira
  • [*]
Re: 2017 Format Poll (lossy codecs)
Reply #33
My vote goes to opus cause is the most sophisticated lossy format nowadays. I encode at 155 kbps and play on my android phone with Aimp player conected to my HiFi amplifier.



P.D.: Sorry for my english.

Re: 2017 Format Poll (lossy codecs)
Reply #34
The part I don't understand is why you are using hybrid (lossy + correction file). If you are never using the lossy part of your archive, you might as well archive in wavpack lossless, and save several Mb per track at same compression settings...

Well, does the expression "hybrid" in connection with WavPack always mandate the use of a correction file? To my knowledge, WavPack Hybrid also describes lossy compression without correction file. Which is what I use. And the way WavPack Hybrid compresses does not forbid possible transcoding with other codecs :)
Well, to me, "hybrid" implies a hybrid between two or more distinctive features. In this case, lossy and lossless, which would mean that yes, it mandates the use of a correction file. I don't know how others see it though.

Basically, this is how I classify the WavPack encodes:
Code: [Select]
WavPack lossless = lossless only
WavPack lossy = lossy only
WavPack hybrid = lossy + correction file
Thus my confusion about your choice - or rather, definition.

  • DARcode
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Members (Donating)
Re: 2017 Format Poll (lossy codecs)
Reply #35
AAC for compatibility reasons (and sometimes space on DAP), otherwise WavPack lossy.
WavPack 5.1.0 -b384hx6cmv / qaac 2.64 -V 100

  • Cavaille
  • [*][*][*][*]
Re: 2017 Format Poll (lossy codecs)
Reply #36
Basically, this is how I classify the WavPack encodes:
Code: [Select]
WavPack lossless = lossless only
WavPack lossy = lossy only
WavPack hybrid = lossy + correction file
Thus my confusion about your choice - or rather, definition.

I understand. I called it 'WavPack lossy' for an article on my blog and explained the correct designation within (). But that article was for people who don't know anything about lossy codecs so I used it to differentiate it from the lossless mode. Officially, WavPack Hybrid seems to be used to describe both modes and I've never seen the term 'lossy'. We could of course ask David Bryant :) But I also don't want to make a fuss about it.
marlene-d.blogspot.com

  • arkhh
  • [*]
Re: 2017 Format Poll (lossy codecs)
Reply #37
I use Opus at about 96kbps, this way I can fit quite a lot of songs on a 32GB mSD card. They play on a rockboxed ClipZip, on foobar2000, on some linux players, on my Android phone, with bluetooth for the car. And lacking any of those, for that moment when: -Hey man! check this song! -Ok, Wait... How do I play this? -Just drag and drop to a firefox tab XD

  • marc2003
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer
Re: 2017 Format Poll (lossy codecs)
Reply #38
I don't encode anything to lossy any more. Having said that, I voted mp3 because a good chunk of my collection consists of it.

  • bryant
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer (Donating)
Re: 2017 Format Poll (lossy codecs)
Reply #39
I understand. I called it 'WavPack lossy' for an article on my blog and explained the correct designation within (). But that article was for people who don't know anything about lossy codecs so I used it to differentiate it from the lossless mode. Officially, WavPack Hybrid seems to be used to describe both modes and I've never seen the term 'lossy'. We could of course ask David Bryant :) But I also don't want to make a fuss about it.
:)

In the dim past there was a pure WavPack lossy mode (Shorten had such a mode also). At high enough bitrates they worked very well.

When the hybrid mode was developed, I decided to call the new mode “hybrid” even when there was no correction file present because, well, there could be a correction file present, and I wanted to differentiate it from the old lossy mode (which was not nearly as good).

So now I currently report them as being the "hybrid lossless" and "hybrid lossy" modes. But certainly calling the hybrid mode without a correction file just “lossy” would be correct too (and unambiguous).

  • Cavaille
  • [*][*][*][*]
Re: 2017 Format Poll (lossy codecs)
Reply #40
:)

In the dim past there was a pure WavPack lossy mode (Shorten had such a mode also). At high enough bitrates they worked very well.

When the hybrid mode was developed, I decided to call the new mode “hybrid” even when there was no correction file present because, well, there could be a correction file present, and I wanted to differentiate it from the old lossy mode (which was not nearly as good).

So now I currently report them as being the "hybrid lossless" and "hybrid lossy" modes. But certainly calling the hybrid mode without a correction file just “lossy” would be correct too (and unambiguous).

That clears it up!

Thank you :)
marlene-d.blogspot.com

  • polemon
  • [*][*][*][*]
Re: 2017 Format Poll (lossy codecs)
Reply #41
Does "using" also count as using Youtube and their set of encoding formats? I.e. listening to music on Youtube and watch videos?

  • Heliologue
  • [*][*][*]
Re: 2017 Format Poll (lossy codecs)
Reply #42
Does "using" also count as using Youtube and their set of encoding formats? I.e. listening to music on Youtube and watch videos?

That would be technically correctly (the best kind of correct!), but I have a feeling that the poll is meant to understand the intentionality of your personal codec choice.  Certainly, streaming services have their own reasons, which may be biased toward efficiency over quality;  it would cost me nothing but additional storage space to use FLAC on my phone, but Google would be out of their minds to, e.g., stream lossless audio from Youtube.

Re: 2017 Format Poll (lossy codecs)
Reply #43
How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love MP3 back again!

'cause:
- my ears are not that young anymore;
- my patience with trying every new bit of  'promising' new coded has probably run out by now;
- I can't hear anything discernibly wrong with MP3 - at all!*

Edit: Oh yeah: COMPATIBILITY!
Later: even more so when driving or listening to music whilst actually getting some work done.
I' guess I've never been the sort of purist who sits down in an armchair (rightly posioned in the room) with the sole intent of listening to music hours on end.
  • Last Edit: 21 May, 2017, 02:02:10 PM by includemeout
Listen to the music, not the media.

  • polemon
  • [*][*][*][*]
Re: 2017 Format Poll (lossy codecs)
Reply #44
How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love MP3 back again!

'cause:
- my ears are not that young anymore;
- my patience with trying every new bit of  'promising' new coded has probably ran out by now;
- I can't hear anything discernibly wrong with MP3 - at all!

Edit: Oh yeah: COMPATIBILITY!

Yeeaaah, get a copy of Plugger MP3 encoder and convert your favorite FLAC to 112kbps MP3 with it...

Seriously though, MP3 isn't that bad at all, when using with LAME, and in most circumstances. my car audio system can only decode WAV, MP3 and I think WMA, although I'm not sure. So MP3s it is for that use case.

Re: 2017 Format Poll (lossy codecs)
Reply #45
Seriously though, MP3 isn't that bad at all, when using with LAME, [...]
You don't say!
Listen to the music, not the media.

Re: 2017 Format Poll (lossy codecs)
Reply #46
Yeeaaah, get a copy of Plugger MP3 encoder and convert your favorite FLAC to 112kbps MP3 with it...
I honestly hope that poor attempt at a joke was not at my expense.
Listen to the music, not the media.

  • pmattke93
  • [*]
Re: 2017 Format Poll (lossy codecs)
Reply #47
From my side, I encode my FLAC collection to Ogg Vorbis, especially since this is the format which passed a gapless playback test I did, best.

I compared LAME-encoded MP3, Apple AAC and Vorbis (using aotuv) with a pair of tracks with seamless transition. The test has been done with Poweramp 2, and I realized short glitches between the tracks with both MP3 and AAC. Ogg Vorbis was the only format where the transition was really clean and seamless.

I actually don't know if this is an issue of Lame / MP3 / AAC, or more an issue of Poweramp, but since this is the player I use for portable listening, vorbis was the codec of my choice to use :)

  • adamOLC
  • [*]
Re: 2017 Format Poll (lossy codecs)
Reply #48
I voted mp3.  I started with mp3, then went to flac, and then realized I can't hear a difference with my audio gear.  Over the past few weeks I started converting my flac to AAC256 due to the smaller file size and once again I can't hear a difference so AAC makes more sense.  I know there are other formats that offer even smaller file size, but not all of them are supported on my portable DAPs.

  • ThaCrip
  • [*]
Re: 2017 Format Poll (lossy codecs)
Reply #49
I voted for AAC. i recently re-encoded my entire collection (pretty much) to AAC @ 128kbps from my FLAC files. i used to have MP3 (LAME v2 (190kbps average)) but i figured, while those are good quality, they are not that efficient with the storage space on my 16GB MicroSDHC card which i got in my Sansa e250 v1 running Rockbox. it seems those looking for a more efficient use of storage space, AAC is a better option than MP3 nowadays as while MP3 is always a safe choice when it comes to wide compatibility i figure there are probably not that many older devices out there that cannot also play AAC at this point in time. so in a way MP3 is somewhat obsolete especially if your device can play AAC or Opus etc.

AAC-LC encoded with Foobar2000 (i also have Foobar2000 Encoder Pack installed to) using Apple AAC encoder @ q63 (128kbps) TVBR mode is what i used. this sounds like a safe setting for quality/file size/compatibility nowadays.

my alternate choice... Opus @ 64kbps (maybe 80kbps(or 96kbps/128kbps TOPS)). that seems to be the minimum i would recommend especially for music your not too concerned with having top quality sound but still sounds respectable. but i have a feeling that 80kbps recommendation from others here is a solid choice to for those looking for a great balance of sound quality/storage space(but lean a bit towards storage space). but 80kbps would give a 20% increase in file size over 64kbps. but i guess for those who are using Opus as their primary lossy format i would also likely go with 80kbps minimum (gives a bit of a buffer there over the 64kbps setting which i feel sounds pretty good) and would even consider 96kbps or 128kbps settings. i figure with modern lossy encoders it's not worth using beyond 128kbps as beyond that point i feel they start to lose a lot of their efficiency and starts to defeat the purpose of using a lossy encoder in the first place which is to save storage space.

but about that Opus stuff... just on my PC (which has Klipsch Pro-Media speakers(i would say these are better than your average computer speakers. i have had them since the early 2000's)) using Foobar2000 doing a quick ABX test, while i never actually completed the ABX test in what i am about to say, i have found that going from 32kbps to 48kbps to 64kbps you can notice it just from playing the Sample A and Sample B like swapping between the two it's not that hard to tell the Opus file from the FLAC file but once i hit 64kbps my confidence in picking the FLAC over the Opus file, without actually completing the ABX test, disappears which is why i figure 64kbps is the minimum i would recommend for Opus music if your trying to get maximum storage space without quality dropping off TOO much(although i will say even 32kbps/48kbps settings are respectable considering the really low bit rates). but i have a feeling that 80kbps setting is more of a safe buffer there as i seem to be similar to some other users comments i have read recently. but just given what i said i feel once you hit 64kbps all of the more easier to detect sound flaws are largely gone to the point, when just listening without focusing too hard on trying to find flaws etc, i feel 64kbps is easily decent enough and gives nearly double the storage space of Apple AAC @ TVBR q63 (128kbps).

that's why i settled on Apple AAC @ q63 (128kbps) + Opus @ 64kbps combo for my general music collection for playing back on my Sansa e250 v1 with the 16GB MicroSDHC card as it helps efficient storage space/sound quality combo as after i switched to that from MP3 i basically got my entire collection, and then some, and still have more than 6GB left where as before i only had about 1.5GB free. because even if not much hardware supports Opus, i always have the 128kbps AAC's to fall back on and that bit rate is high enough to where it's a safe setting for quality (and keeping file size efficient). like with that AAC stuff... i won't have to worry about having to re-encode to another format at this point in time.

just some thoughts ;)

p.s. to encode Apple AAC in Foobar2000... i simply extract the 'AppleApplicationSupport.msi' out of the newest iTunes installer using 7-zip and then install that and then Foobar2000 has no issues encoding Apple AAC files once you have the Foobar2000 Encoder Pack installed (that encoder pack also allows for Opus v1.2 encoding to). all are free.

SIDE NOTE: i assume Opus takes more CPU to decode than Apple AAC? ; because while both Apple AAC and Opus files play fine on my Sansa e250 v1 player i do notice when navigating the menu's in Rockbox while a Opus file is playing get a bit sluggish which does not happen when playing Apple AAC (AAC-LC) files as the AAC files everything works as expected. that sluggish effect remains pretty much the same whether i tried Opus @ 32kbps or 128kbps but the music playback seems to work fine as i don't hear any stutters etc.
  • Last Edit: 15 October, 2017, 01:36:32 AM by ThaCrip