2017 Format Poll (lossy codecs)

Topic: 2017 Format Poll (lossy codecs) (Read 19334 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: 2017 Format Poll (lossy codecs)

Reply #50 – 2017-10-15 07:44:21

Quote from: ThaCrip on 2017-10-15 06:33:56

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.

Unneeded confusion, you don't need to install anything from Apple, I am strongly against installing anything in general, I use most I can in portable mode. You can use the iTunes libraries in portable mode too with "makeportable" from nu774, download here: https://sites.google.com/site/qaacpage/cabinet

For the rest, there are recommended settings for every codec on the hydrogenaudio wiki, they say approximately when a codec is close to transparency as well. I didn't mean to sound rude by any means, thanks for the info and keep testing. I am able to hear distortion in the bass with my iPhone in speaker mode at 64 for Opus but I can't distinguish at 96, didn't try 80 but I'll do more testing that's why I didn't "report" anything yet.

Re: 2017 Format Poll (lossy codecs)

Reply #51 – 2017-10-15 10:34:30

@eahm ; I got that 'makeportable' batch file to work this time simply because i noticed it created a folder called 'QTfiles' inside of the working TEMP folder i made (like i put batch file and iTunesSetup.exe into that TEMP folder) and then i loaded up the command prompt in administrator mode (i don't know if that part is needed or not but i did that to ensure it functioned properly) and then went to the D:\TEMP\ folder and then ran the 'makeportable' (without the ') and hit enter and i seen it do something real quick in the dos window but at that point i figured it was all automatic and tried to encode a Apple AAC file like usual in Foobar2000 but it failed and then i went and checked the D:\TEMP\ folder and noticed it made a 'QTfiles' folder at which point i took a guess and copied and pasted the entire 'QTfiles' folder to Foobar2000's 'encoders' folder and then tried encoding a Apple AAC file like usual and it worked!

but i wonder if i can simply just put those two files into a folder and then right click the 'makeportable.bat' file and select 'run as administrator' will do the trick (or can i just click the makeportable without the admin mode?) or do i have to manually run things from a command prompt like i did. i guess i could test but ill see what you think first.

but that does cut down on file size a bit as it's "37.7 MB (39,543,904 bytes)" (although if i compress the 'QTfiles' folder with 7-zip that shrinks it down to only "9.23 MB (9,684,216 bytes)"

) vs the .msi file (i.e. 43.8 MB (45,940,736 bytes)) and i don't need to have any from Apple installed as this seems more of a proper way to use these things. but it does not come with any basic instructions as i could easily see how some people would not know what to do even if they got the basic 'iTunesSetup.exe' and 'makeportable.bat' into the same folder and then executed the .bat file as i imagine running it straight up without actually going to a command prompt will probably flash the window quickly and one will wonder what the hell happened.

but once you confirm what i was asking above ill edit my couple of posts suggesting people use the AppleApplicationSupport.msi and guide then to that makeportable.bat instead. but even though you and i prefer the way you just recommended to me i could see why the average person would rather do things the way i initially described with the .msi file because it's a bit quicker/simpler to get things up and running as a bit less computer knowledge is needed. because i am just hoping to tell someone to create a TEMP folder and put those two files (i.e. iTunesSetup.exe (the 32bit one) and makeportable.bat) into the TEMP folder and then simply execute the .bat file and then tell them to copy the created 'QTfiles' folder to Foobar2000's installation folder under the 'encoders' folder and then they are golden

p.s. the two Winamp FhG files compressed with 7-zip are only 420 KB (430,781 bytes) in size. but it seems this encoder is only worth using if someone wants files around 32-48kbps etc and being more of the AAC-HE standard which is more CPU intensive etc.

Quote

I am able to hear distortion in the bass with my iPhone in speaker mode at 64 for Opus but I can't distinguish at 96, didn't try 80 but I'll do more testing that's why I didn't "report" anything yet.

Okay, thanks for the info.

it's cool, as i know what i said some people will have differing opinions and all as like i said i was just doing a pretty quick test and found @ 64kbps things were not obviously off at that point without spending much time listening to sounds more focused etc. so it's possible i could notice some artifacts if i put more effort into it but i think 64kbps is up to a standard that the overall sound is not obviously weak(especially given it's not far from 96kbps which people seem to think positively of), even though i would have no doubts that some users here would have no problem picking up on it. but if i recall correctly i think i read that someone who's trained to spot artifacts can pick up on them more easily than people like me who likely can't etc(?). because i guess when i listen to music in general i am mainly focused more around the singers voice than anything else as long as there is no obvious weird fluctuations in the overall sound outside of that it will probably be harder for me to notice(i know some people can give some pretty technical terms to specifically point out what it is they are hearing but i don't know all of that technical terms on what i am hearing other than something is off or not etc).

but are those iPhone speakers any good? ; it seems like those would be harder to notice unless those speakers on there are better than i think they are as i never played around with a iPhone, pretty much. so ill just have to take your word for i.

Re: 2017 Format Poll (lossy codecs)

Reply #52 – 2017-10-15 10:36:36

You need 7-Zip to run makeportable, you can get that one portable as well (https://portableapps.com/apps/utilities/7-zip_portable), just copy the 7z.exe where makeportable.bat is.

Re: 2017 Format Poll (lossy codecs)

Reply #53 – 2017-10-15 10:53:02

@eahm

Quote from: eahm on 2017-10-15 10:36:36

You need 7-Zip to run makeportable, you can get that one portable as well (https://portableapps.com/apps/utilities/7-zip_portable), just copy the 7z.exe where makeportable.bat is.

I assume you meant to link to this (as your link don't work because you got the ")," which got included as part of the link)... https://portableapps.com/apps/utilities/7-zip_portable ; but the good news is, i already got 7-zip installed straight up from the official 7-zip website.... http://7-zip.org/ ; that must have allowed the .bat file to work for me. but i would have to mention that to people that in order for the makeportable.bat to work they need 7-zip installed on their system (or put that .exe in the same folder as the makeportable.bat like you said). but i guess that complicates things a bit more for some computer challenged people which makes it a bit easier for me to just tell people to install things with the .msi, but then again i needed 7-zip installed to extract that .msi file out of the iTunesSetup.exe in the first place.

hell, it's just going to be much easier for me to make a .zip file and upload it somewhere and then simply tell people to download it and then extract it to "C:\Program Files (x86)\foobar2000\encoders" (without the ") as that would be easier than explaining things to people

; or is linking to something like that not allowed here?

but do you know if running that .bat file in 'Run as administrator' mode is required or not? (i could play around with things myself but i just wondered if you knew straight up so i could dodge the testing)

Re: 2017 Format Poll (lossy codecs)

Reply #54 – 2017-10-15 11:15:22

We are OT but no, no need to copy the .exe if you have it installed and no need to run as administrator, only the .exe of iTunes and makeportable.cmd (.cmd sorry not .bat) in the same folder and it will create QTFiles and QTFiles64 if you downloaded the 64bit version.

Re: 2017 Format Poll (lossy codecs)

Reply #55 – 2017-10-15 11:21:20

Quote from: eahm on 2017-10-15 11:15:22

We are OT but no, no need to copy the .exe if you have it installed and no need to run as administrator, only the .exe of iTunes and makeportable.cmd (.cmd sorry not .bat) in the same folder and it will create QTFiles and QTFiles64 if you downloaded the 64bit version.

That should clear things up. but one last question... it's not possible to use the 64bit version of Apple AAC encoders with Foobar2000, since Foobar2000 needs 32bit stuff since it's 32bit itself, correct?

p.s. my bad with the .bat thing.

Re: 2017 Format Poll (lossy codecs)

Reply #56 – 2017-10-15 11:27:08

You can of course, the CLI runs indipentently and foobar2000 looks for both versions when you send the convert command.

Re: 2017 Format Poll (lossy codecs)

Reply #57 – 2017-10-15 13:29:22

Quote from: eahm on 2017-10-15 11:27:08

You can of course, the CLI runs indipentently and foobar2000 looks for both versions when you send the convert command.

It errors when i try using 64bit Apple AAC encoder but works with 32bit. there must be something that makes it conflict which i assume has something to do with Foobar2000 being 32bit and that Apple AAC from the 64bit iTunes download with the QTfiles64 files being 64bit. looks like ill have to stick with the 32bit ones.

i was just curious if the 64bit sqeezed a little extra encoding performance (i.e. shorter encoding times) vs the 32bit version is all.

Re: 2017 Format Poll (lossy codecs)

Reply #58 – 2017-10-15 19:47:08

Quote from: ThaCrip on 2017-10-15 13:29:22

Quote from: eahm on 2017-10-15 11:27:08
You can of course, the CLI runs indipentently and foobar2000 looks for both versions when you send the convert command.

It errors when i try using 64bit Apple AAC encoder but works with 32bit. there must be something that makes it conflict which i assume has something to do with Foobar2000 being 32bit and that Apple AAC from the 64bit iTunes download with the QTfiles64 files being 64bit. looks like ill have to stick with the 32bit ones.

i was just curious if the 64bit sqeezed a little extra encoding performance (i.e. shorter encoding times) vs the 32bit version is all.

I am going to PM you a package you should test and analyze to see how the folder and encoders should be put inside the foobar2000's encoders folder.

Re: 2017 Format Poll (lossy codecs)

Reply #59 – 2017-10-15 20:29:03

I voted MP3 as I do still use them probably more than anything else at the moment lossy wise.

I also use AAC (M4A) a lot as a certain Radio station's audio is transmitted in 320kbps aac.

Given the choice I'd use OPUS though and have used it on some portable audio devices. Rockbox didn't seem to too happy with them though, which is a bit annoying.

Re: 2017 Format Poll (lossy codecs)

Reply #60 – 2017-10-16 01:28:05

@jaybeee

Quote

Rockbox didn't seem to too happy with them though, which is a bit annoying.

Rockbox v3.14 (newest official release which is from May 1st 2017) works fine with my Opus files except i think there is a bit of a CPU issue though on my Sansa e250 v1 as while the audio plays fine, when navigating the menus during playback of a Opus file the menu's are a bit sluggish as things are not quick to respond like they normally are when playing a MP3/AAC-LC file etc.

if your using a older build of Rockbox i would upgrade to at least v3.14

Re: 2017 Format Poll (lossy codecs)

Reply #61 – 2017-10-16 01:37:42

Not unexpected, since Opus is a bit of a CPU hog. Still:

It can't be too bad, unless I'm just holding a portable supercomputer here. Maybe most ARM devices that are sub-$150 kind of suck by design?

Re: 2017 Format Poll (lossy codecs)

Reply #62 – 2017-10-16 02:10:18

Could you please tell me what app that one is, @kode54 ?

Re: 2017 Format Poll (lossy codecs)

Reply #63 – 2017-10-16 02:10:28

Quote from: kode54 on 2017-10-16 01:37:42

Not unexpected, since Opus is a bit of a CPU hog. Still:

It can't be too bad, unless I'm just holding a portable supercomputer here. Maybe most ARM devices that are sub-$150 kind of suck by design?

If you mean the e200v1, it's an 11 year old player with a CPU core launched in the year 2000, so processing time is a bit tight. That and I never got around to optimizing opus much for the obsolete arm cores.

Still, opus isn't slow. It really does decode on almost 20 year old embedded CPUs meant for mp3 (unlike aac-he). With more optimization, it'd probably be pretty close to mp3 or AAC-lc.

Re: 2017 Format Poll (lossy codecs)

Reply #64 – 2017-10-16 03:18:48

Quote from: kode54 on 2017-10-16 01:37:42

Maybe most ARM devices that are sub-$150 kind of suck by design?

There is a variety of smartphones (~100-120$, Moto -E/-C series) which have an efficient ARM chips those are capable to decode Opus and even Wavpack (highest preset) with 50-60 hours of battery life.

The thing is that Sansa chips are obsolete as hell. People can't pretend to use new formats on such awfully old devices.

Re: 2017 Format Poll (lossy codecs)

Reply #65 – 2017-10-16 04:39:10

Quote from: includemeout on 2017-10-16 02:10:18

Could you please tell me what app that one is, @kode54 ?

It is foobar2000 Mobile, the public App Store version, and this audio set is referred to as fooSPEC 2013. I am mirroring the file set just to reduce the bandwidth drain a bit, and also removed the bundled old release of Windows foobar2000, from when the benchmark was designed to test the speeds of various FFmpeg based codecs against the older player, which predated the inclusion of the mini FFmpeg.

Actually, 2013 only included a then-stable release. 2012 included the FFmpeg vs original comparison. 2012 also lacked the TAK file that I later added, which Mobile now supports, thanks to FFmpeg's reverse engineering efforts.

Re: 2017 Format Poll (lossy codecs)

Reply #66 – 2017-10-16 05:17:15

More arm benchmarks:

https://www.rockbox.org/wiki/CodecPerformanceComparison

Re: 2017 Format Poll (lossy codecs)

Reply #67 – 2017-10-16 07:15:20

Quote from: IgorC on 2017-10-16 03:18:48

Quote from: kode54 on 2017-10-16 01:37:42
Maybe most ARM devices that are sub-$150 kind of suck by design?
There is a variety of smartphones (~100-120$, Moto -E/-C series) which have an efficient ARM chips those are capable to decode Opus and even Wavpack (highest preset) with 50-60 hours of battery life.

The thing is that Sansa chips are obsolete as hell. People can't pretend to use new formats on such awfully old devices.

That's true and all but personally i don't want to use a 'phone' for playing music. i prefer using using a device actually made for music. plus, the Sansa e250 is nice and compact so it's easier to carry around and has expandable memory via MicroSD and a user replaceable battery which are ultimately why it's still worth using (i especially like Rockbox on it which is how things should work where you can directly access files/folders like you can in Windows Explorer etc) as if i only had the 2GB built in memory and that's it, it would be much more limited but since it supports MicroSD chips, it can hold a lot more music (basically my entire collection) and with using Opus occasionally it can fit even more onto it even though i suspect battery runtime might take a hit as i have not tested it in comparison to AAC-LC yet. but years ago i think it was 20 hours or so (at least 15+) battery runtime with MP3 on the e250 v1.

so unless something is quite a bit more difficult to decode than MP3, then it should play even on old hardware like the e250. i have had my e250 for 9+ years now.

p.s. i have a MicroSDHC 16GB chip in the e250 v1 and i realize i could always get a 32GB-64GB card as they are cheap enough(i.e. $15-25), and have been for a while now, but i just try to make the most of my 16GB card which as long as i use 128kbps Apple AAC i can fit my entire collection on that 16GB MicroSD with a fair amount of space left over and if i ever start to run a little low on space i could always swap a portion of it out to Opus 64kbps since i ripped all of my FLAC to 128kbs AAC/64kbps Opus. but if i ever do get a 32GB or higher card for the e250 at that point it's probably not worth using Opus at all, given the slight issues it has(sluggish menu's on Rockbox during playback and i assume drinks noticeably more juice from the battery), and i could exclusively use 128kbps AAC-LC (Apple q63 TVBR).

Re: 2017 Format Poll (lossy codecs)

Reply #68 – 2017-10-16 13:18:13

Quote from: ThaCrip on 2017-10-16 01:28:05

@jaybeee

Quote
Rockbox didn't seem to too happy with them though, which is a bit annoying.

Rockbox v3.14 (newest official release which is from May 1st 2017) works fine with my Opus files except i think there is a bit of a CPU issue though on my Sansa e250 v1 as while the audio plays fine, when navigating the menus during playback of a Opus file the menu's are a bit sluggish as things are not quick to respond like they normally are when playing a MP3/AAC-LC file etc.

if your using a older build of Rockbox i would upgrade to at least v3.14

I'm using the latest stable build. I sort of reported it here.

Re: 2017 Format Poll (lossy codecs)

Reply #69 – 2017-10-16 14:48:56

@jaybeee

after reading your link...

At least Opus works unlike HE-AAC (HE-AAC uses a lot more CPU cycles (not to be mistaken with the typical AAC-LC which works fine)) which will make your player unusable and you pretty much have to hold down the power button to turn it off. then power it back up and use other files like normal. i have tried Opus between 32-128kbps and it's pretty much the same in that it's useable but menu's are laggy. but how's your battery life on your e200 series with those Opus files, as while i never thoroughly tested it yet, i am going to assume there will be a noticeable hit to battery runtime. so assuming that's true, the laggy menu thing and potential solid battery runtime drop off makes Opus less appealing(even though it's a good audio format).

but i assume you got a e200 series v1 like i do? ; my guess is the v2 models will handle Opus fine due to a faster CPU as i think the v1's are pretty much 80Mhz but the v2's are 250Mhz.

basically with what we have, in my opinion, Apple AAC @ 128kbps (q63 TVBR) is your best all around bet for a safe sound quality setting while maintaining a efficient file size (like the sweet spot of quality/file size). that's why i recently converted all of my FLAC files to Apple AAC @ q63 (128kbps) TVBR mode (i was using LAME v2 (190kbps average)). by default Foobar2000 + Encoder Pack won't allow you to encode Apple AAC though even though it does include the qaac.exe file with that Encoder Pack (but you still need the actual Apple AAC files for that qaac.exe to work). if you want to use Apple AAC let me know as i can send you a file (in .7z format and is only 9.23 MB (9,684,216 bytes). basically it has a 'QTfiles' folder there which you simply extract to the Foobar2000 'encoders' folder and that's it, it will work) which will make it nice and simple to use the newest Apple AAC encoding in Foobar2000 as i extracted the Apple AAC stuff from iTunes v12.7 which is currently the newest one available. also, i am assuming you already have the latest Foobar2000 Encoder Pack installed. from what i hear IgorC say(which i believe was from a post earlier this year), when it comes to AAC format Apple AAC is THE best encoder in the 96kbps+ range.

Re: 2017 Format Poll (lossy codecs)

Reply #70 – 2017-10-16 15:40:32

Quote from: ThaCrip on 2017-10-16 14:48:56

...

thanks for the good info.

yeah it's a v1 e200 series (e270). as you say, must be the underpowered cpu causing the issues.

I've got the Apple AAC encoder setup in foobar and works ok (just tested actually). I'll probably end up using that at ~128kbps for my portable music coming from a lossless source.

Re: 2017 Format Poll (lossy codecs)

Reply #71 – 2017-10-16 22:31:57

Now using opus on a clip zip with no issues. Rockbox 3.14. Grateful to all.

Re: 2017 Format Poll (lossy codecs)

Reply #72 – 2017-10-17 02:40:53

Quote from: ThaCrip on 2017-10-16 07:15:20

That's true and all but personally i don't want to use a 'phone' for playing music.

I understand.

Quote from: ThaCrip on 2017-10-16 07:15:20

...and i could exclusively use 128kbps AAC-LC (Apple q63 TVBR).

You can't go wrong with Apple LC-AAC encoder for 96 kbps and higher.
It was on top of all LC-AAC encoders in every public and personal test here in HydrogenAudio. All claims about superiority of any other LC-AAC encoder is simply not true ( always speaking of 96 kbps and higher)

Re: 2017 Format Poll (lossy codecs)

Reply #73 – 2017-10-17 08:14:41

Quote from: finphil on 2017-10-16 22:31:57

Now using opus on a clip zip with no issues. Rockbox 3.14. Grateful to all.

I think that pretty much confirms what i suspected as i think you got a noticeably faster CPU (i think it's around 240Mhz but i can't seem to find anything definitive looking around on Rockbox website) than what our e200 series v1 players do which appears to be only 80Mhz.

with that said, i would not be surprised to see Opus use noticeably more battery than AAC-LC does on your device even though Opus functions well for you and there is apparently no laggy menu's while playing Opus encoded music. but i guess as long as the battery runtime does not drop off too much then you ain't got much to lose by using Opus over AAC-LC, especially if you don't care about the whole wide compatibility aspect of which AAC-LC will always beat everything, outside of MP3 of course. but i figure at this point in time it's not likely many devices that work with MP3 but don't work with AAC-LC are still in use anyways.

but i guess when it comes to the whole Opus vs AAC-LC (Apple AAC basically)... i suspect the trade off boils down to less battery life for probably a little better sound at the lower bit rates (when choosing Opus over AAC-LC). but i am not sure how Opus compares to AAC-LC once you get into the 128kbps+ range. but i figure even if Opus wins, it's got to be very little difference to most people in the real world as i would imagine even those with the golden ears etc who can detect artifacts at the 128kbps+ ranges it's probably something they got to be really focused on(?) and when just enjoying their music it would be negligible difference(?). that's basically why i feel Apple AAC @ 128kbps (q63 TVBR) is a safe setting (considering the public ABX test link below @ 96kbps from late-2014 that i linked to below) and is a nice efficient use of the encoder to as your not using excessive bit rates to clean up tiny things.

but as far as the 96kbps range... taking a quick look on these forums i found a public listening test from late-2014 that shows Opus was #1 with Apple AAC being #2 and that was before the Opus v1.2 release earlier this year which seems to further refine the sound quality of the encoder even though, from what i have read, most of the Opus v1.2 improvements are at the really low bit rates (say 32-48kbps or so, maybe 64kbps-ish a bit etc) which i would not be surprised if it squeezed a little more out of it. but like mentioned... with modern encoders like Apple AAC or Opus in the 96kbps+ range they are quite strong to where they simply cannot sound bad, even amongst those with the golden ears. so while these modern encoders are solid, to bad they were not this way say 10 years ago when storage space was not cheap etc as back in those days really low bit rates would have been more appealing as even being able to use 128kbps, like we can today (and for at least most of this decade), would have been nice as, if i recall correctly, using higher bit rates back in those days were somewhat required to get consistently good sound basically.

hell, just last night i was trying to do a ABX test on a random song i had with Opus @ 64kbps (in comparison to the FLAC obviously) and when i started the test i was confident i was hearing a difference for the first 4-5 choices (i was attempting to do 12 rounds in the ABX test) as i made my picks fairly quickly but after that i started losing confidence again (as i was no longer confident i was hearing enough of a difference to make a choice that i was confident in making) and stopped the test. but even assuming someone gives me the benefit of the doubt (in that i was hearing a difference), during the times i was confident i was making the correct choice, the sound was not that much different in that if i was not hearing the Opus @ 64kbps file in comparison to the FLAC file i doubt i could notice any differences when listening to the song straight up as the overall sound seemed consistent but there was something you could notice (i don't know how to describe it as i don't know the technical terms), like something in the overall sound altered just a little to be able to slightly detect it. but this is why i suspect, to play it a bit safer, if i had Opus @ 80kbps i would not be surprised if i could not ABX that, at all. so if that's true, then i would be very similar to some users around here who feel Opus @ 80kbps is a fairly safe setting because even if we could notice it at that point, it would likely be in that major focusing level of concentration etc which when your at that point, or even close, it's pretty safe to say the overall sound is pretty stable/good and likely will be on a wide range of music for us.

p.s. here is the 96kbps test i was referring to above... https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,106354.msg874674.html#msg874674 ; side note: you notice MP3 seems competitive there (but still a bit worse) but it's also using noticeably higher bit rates. so it's sorta cheating to stay competitive. hence, Opus/AAC-LC are just better as they use noticeably less bit rates to achieve similar sound quality.

Re: 2017 Format Poll (lossy codecs)

Reply #74 – 2017-10-25 05:11:01

I get a rippling sound once in a while when playing .opus music @64kbps with my Galaxy Note 4 in speaker mode. That's why I switched back to AAC - HE. The 64kbps in AAC HE (Apple) is perfect for mobile devices who wants to save more storage space, now I'm testing HE V2 to see if there's any improvement.

Poll

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

What lossy formats do you use on a regular basis?