Best Compression Format/Codec |
  |
Best Compression Format/Codec |
 Aug 9 2004, 06:17
Post
#1
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 2 Joined: 9-August 04 Member No.: 16130  |
Hi, I am new at encoding large audio files [wav] into compressed audio format. I've always been using MP3 as my codecs but I've seen many other ones pop up lately and do not know which is which. Can anyone help me and explain which codec will yield the best audio quality if everything is on maximum setting? What I mean is that say if you have a WMA file at maximum setting versus an MP3 file at maximum setting (320kbps I think), how does each different codecs compare against one another? Thanks for all the help.
|
 |
 
|
|
Aug 9 2004, 06:22
Post
#2
|
|
 Group: Members Posts: 28 Joined: 22-November 02 Member No.: 3837 |
Lame with freeformat settings @640KBPS
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 9 2004, 06:50
Post
#3
|
|
 Group: Members (Donating) Posts: 1180 Joined: 21-February 02 From: Chicago Member No.: 1367 |
@ara-fat32: We help people on this board not make fun of them.
If you care for the best quality no matter what the bitrate is try one of the lossless codecs, they have no quality loss (that is why the term lossless) compared to the original. That's the best you can get. If you are willing to sacrifice some quality (which is usually inaudible) for a gain in space then check out the lossy codecs: MP3/Vorbis/MPC/AAC. Very basically put: MP3: The standard, best hardware support, older standard. Vorbis: Free/Open codec as good as MP3. Less hardware support. AAC: Successor to MP3 pushed by big corporations. High quality. Lossy format of the future. MPC: Generally highest quality you can get at high bitrates. Very high encoding/decoding speed. Minimal hardware support (You can play on your PC though). Try to do a search and do a bit of reading. The information is there. This post has been edited by atici: Aug 9 2004, 15:09 -------------------- The object of mankind lies in its highest individuals.
One must have chaos in oneself to be able to give birth to a dancing star. |
|
|
|
|
Aug 9 2004, 06:51
Post
#4
|
|
 Group: Members Posts: 477 Joined: 22-December 03 From: Malmö, Sweden Member No.: 10615 |
Maby the FAQ would have some information that would intrest you.
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 9 2004, 06:51
Post
#5
|
|
 Group: Members (Donating) Posts: 552 Joined: 9-June 04 From: A place long since forgotten... Member No.: 14572 |
QUOTE What I mean is that say if you have a WMA file at maximum setting versus an MP3 file at maximum setting (320kbps I think), how does each different codecs compare against one another? At such high birates I doubt you'd be able to tell any of the lossy codecs apart. ABX'ing at that point is really really hard. This post has been edited by DreamTactix291: Aug 9 2004, 06:53 -------------------- Nero AAC 1.5.1.0: -q0.45
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 9 2004, 06:56
Post
#6
|
|
 Group: Members Posts: 199 Joined: 14-March 03 Member No.: 5487 |
one factor in choosing between lossly and lossless can be the source and intended use of the resulting files. If CDs are the source then lossy may very well be fine; personally most of my work involves tape or vinyls and I use lossless (FLAC) to avoid having to repeat the transfer process in the future. Always a simple matter to transcode to whatever lossy codec of choice.
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 9 2004, 06:57
Post
#7
|
|
 Group: Members Posts: 20 Joined: 21-June 04 From: France Member No.: 14808 |
atici : 3rd paragr. 'lossless' -> 'lossy' ;)
(maybe are you making fun of us ?...) This post has been edited by HotShot~: Aug 9 2004, 06:58 |
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 21st May 2013 - 21:17 |
