Codec choice poll |
Hydrogenaudio Forum Rules - No Warez. This includes warez links, cracks and/or requests for help in getting illegal software or copyrighted music tracks!
- No Spamming or Trolling on the boards, this includes useless posts, trying to only increase post count or trying to deliberately create a flame war.
- No Hateful or Disrespectful posts. This includes: bashing, name-calling or insults directed at a board member.
- Click here for complete Hydrogenaudio Terms of Service
  |
Codec choice poll |
 Oct 25 2001, 23:34
Post
#1
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 21 Joined: 11-October 01 Member No.: 270  |
Why not turn the "which code do you use" thread into a poll covering a range of formats? Who on the board uses: a.) MPC b.) AAC c.) MP3 (Lame) d.) MP3 (FHG) e.) OGG f.) VQF g.) WMA for archiving Most of your music is encoded in: a.) MPC b.) AAC c.) MP3 (Lame) d.) MP3 (FHG) e.) OGG f.) VQF g.) WMA You reckon the best encoder for everyday use is: a.) MPC b.) AAC c.) MP3 (Lame) d.) MP3 (FHG) e.) OGG f.) VQF g.) WMA or something like that?
|
 |
 
|
|
Oct 25 2001, 23:47
Post
#2
|
|
|
Founder Group: Admin Posts: 2958 Joined: 26-August 02 From: Nottingham, UK Member No.: 1 |
Something weird must have happened to this thread when it was validated originally for use on the main page. I'm not quite sure what happened, but I had to reconstruct the poll from scratch by manually inserting the values back into the database. Sorry about this.. I hope I got it all correct. If not.. you know why
I changed the question a little and added another option also. |
|
|
|
|
Oct 25 2001, 23:55
Post
#3
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 90 Joined: 22-September 01 Member No.: 4 |
I still think you should add context to the question. It can be interpreted, currently, in too many ways for it to be a well valid survey. As it stands the results will be meaningful, but still somewhat vague in how one should interpret.
John |
|
|
|
|
Oct 26 2001, 11:07
Post
#4
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 64 Joined: 3-October 01 Member No.: 181 |
.. and i still can't decide. mpc or lame mp3 ?
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 26 2001, 11:46
Post
#5
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 151 Joined: 29-September 01 Member No.: 31 |
I would have voted for mpc but you asked
"Which format do you prefer for personal use?" Since my Rockford Fosgate RFX9000 car cd player only plays mp3s/cdda...and since my rio volt only plays mp3s/cdda/wma and nothing else etc. and since i use these devices to listen to music on the way to work etc... But if there were hardware mpc players...i'd switch in a second... So unless "personal use" only means "in front of a computer" I really cannot see how anyone can choose most of the options given above (e.g., mpc, ogg, aac etc)...unless you always convert them to .wav and then burn them to audio cd but that's a pain, and is really not using mpc anymore but instead you are using cdda.... i also wonder why cdda was listed too since its not a compression scheme... just some thoughts... RD |
|
|
|
|
Oct 26 2001, 13:58
Post
#6
|
|
|
Group: Developer Posts: 65 Joined: 23-September 01 Member No.: 11 |
Perhaps split the pole for Psytel & Liquid AAC? AAC encompasses quite a wide range in quality (like I know people that encode using FAAC!)
Just a thought On a day to day basis I use Psytel
Cheers, -Nic |
|
|
|
|
Oct 26 2001, 14:58
Post
#7
|
|
|
Founder Group: Admin Posts: 2958 Joined: 26-August 02 From: Nottingham, UK Member No.: 1 |
QUOTE Originally posted by RD
i also wonder why cdda was listed too since its not a compression scheme... Well the question doesn't actually say anything about compression itself  But the idea with CDDA was basically to imply any other lossless formats that I didn't mention (FLAC, Shorten, Squish, RKAU, Wavpack etc).
QUOTE Originally posted by Nic
Perhaps split the pole for Psytel & Liquid AAC? AAC encompasses quite a wide range in quality (like I know people that encode using FAAC!) Well to be honest, I shouldn't even have 2 mp3 options actually.. I removed Fhg for a few minutes awhile ago, but CiTay got all excited about it...  (I think he just wants to see LAME beat Fhg in a public poll! )
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 26 2001, 15:19
Post
#8
|
|
 Administrator Group: Admin Posts: 2372 Joined: 22-September 01 Member No.: 3 |
:evilgrin:
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 26 2001, 15:49
Post
#9
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 21 Joined: 11-October 01 Member No.: 270 |
Yea I agree - maybe set up two other separate polls
The first asking about people's use of a format for archiving - when looking to preserve a CD or better quality original source - which encoder would people use personally or which format would they choose if they were (for some unknown reason) suddenly asked to advise the Library of Congress as to which format should be used to preserve important records for future generations :flipoff: The second poll should probably ask about which format is used most often. I mean I use MPC and AAC when I am mixing and for archiving original CD or better quality source stuff - but to be honest the majority of my daily listening to web radio or local files is all MP3 :mad: Regards Bladeraptor |
|
|
|
|
Nov 21 2001, 22:12
Post
#10
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 1 Joined: 21-November 01 Member No.: 518 |
OGG the best.
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 21 2001, 22:24
Post
#11
|
|
|
Group: Banned Posts: 26 Joined: 8-November 01 Member No.: 422 |
I'll just wade into this little debate. I've been a recording engineer for 25 years and an audiophile for a bit longer than that with an extremely high end system. Currently testing Musepack, AAC and FAAC. At this point in time they are truly the only ones that would be in the running for discerning listeners. LAME unfortunately destroys the music to the point where it could not be used for any critical listening. Currently comparing using an Al Stewart track that I was present for the recording of so I know what it should sound like. If anyone's interested I'll let you know my findings once I'm done. I certainly wouldn't, at this early point, consider any of the formats suitable for archiving.
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 2 2001, 22:02
Post
#12
|
|
 Group: Members Posts: 723 Joined: 29-November 01 Member No.: 563 |
I just love how FhG and WMA got 0 here. That's putting 'em in their place
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 24 2002, 12:57
Post
#13
|
|
 Group: Banned Posts: 1131 Joined: 19-September 02 Member No.: 3407 |
This is what I think of some of the codecs
MPC = best for high end encoding OGG = best allrounder, best for lowend encoding AAC = best 128-160k portable MP3/CD encoding MP3 = ??? Does anyone else agree? |
|
|
|
|
Sep 24 2002, 13:02
Post
#14
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 751 Joined: 1-October 01 From: Falkenberg Member No.: 3810 |
I totally agree Jenny
perhaps: 1 - MPC 2 - AAC Hopefully we'll se portable SV8 MPC players in the future, then there are no more alternatives
-------------------- http://davidnordin.wordpress.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 26 2002, 09:23
Post
#15
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 1234 Joined: 5-October 01 Member No.: 220 |
QUOTE (jenny @ Sep 24 2002 - 11:57 PM) This is what I think of some of the codecs MPC = best for high end encoding OGG = best allrounder, best for lowend encoding AAC = best 128-160k portable MP3/CD encoding MP3 = ??? Does anyone else agree? My 2 cents, MPC= For Crazy Audiophiles, hardware support seems a mirage OGG = Free, unpatend, lots of room to grow AAC = Zero, expensive, highly panted, near vorbis technology/quality MP3 = Popular, Best for lossy audio hardware support, acceptable quality |
|
|
|
|
Sep 26 2002, 09:30
Post
#16
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 1234 Joined: 5-October 01 Member No.: 220 |
QUOTE (NeoRenegade @ Dec 3 2001 - 09:02 AM) I just love how FhG and WMA got 0 here. That's putting 'em in their place HEY, FHG is King, where would audio compression be without them?, nowhere & Fastenc an old encoder still kicks ass @128 |
|
|
|
 Sep 26 2002, 10:25
Post
#17
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 247 Joined: 26-January 02 Member No.: 1172 |
Ok, someone voted for VQF.
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 26 2002, 10:45
Post
#18
|
|
 Group: Members Posts: 25 Joined: 17-March 02 From: Valencia, Spain Member No.: 1548 |
I'm in the middle of encoding most of my CD-collection with Lame -aps, so Lame MP3 is my codec of choice for listening. My main "interest" is being able to play the songs on my iRiver 250, so I need the best MP3 codec available
But... I want to begin playing around with OGG, just in case our Korean friends at iRiver release a new firmware supporting OGG And if iRiver didn't have space enough in their 8 Mb upgradeable flash memory, I'm sure I could live without the WMA/ASF codecs They could offer two firmwares:1) MP3/OGG 2) MP3/WMA If anyone wanted to use WMA, they aren't really prepared to use OGG  Best wishes from Valencia (by the Mediterranean Sea in Spain / España)... |
|
|
|
|
Sep 26 2002, 11:03
Post
#19
|
|
 Group: Members Posts: 650 Joined: 28-July 02 From: B'ham UK Member No.: 2828 |
Hey!!! I'm glad to see this time around some people are voting for AAC!
Last time I saw a poll like this it was in the gutters with VQF & WMA.Personally I see AAC as soon to be the best all rounder. Equal quality to MPC at the highest end, the best at 100-150kbs, and not too far behind ogg atm at the low end. With AAC+SBR it will hopefully rival OGG at the low end, being the best or close 2nd in all three areas
-------------------- < w o g o n e . c o m / l o l >
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 26 2002, 11:19
Post
#20
|
|
 Group: Members Posts: 473 Joined: 7-June 02 Member No.: 2244 |
Uhm... you all know that this thread is a year old?
|
|
|
|
| Guest_SK1_* |
Sep 26 2002, 11:29
Post
#21
|
|
Guests |
QUOTE (Mac @ Sep 26 2002 - 10:03 AM) Hey!!! I'm glad to see this time around some people are voting for AAC! Last time I saw a poll like this it was in the gutters with VQF & WMA.Personally I see AAC as soon to be the best all rounder. Equal quality to MPC at the highest end, the best at 100-150kbs, and not too far behind ogg atm at the low end. With AAC+SBR it will hopefully rival OGG at the low end, being the best or close 2nd in all three areas I guess you can say "Equal quality to MPC at the highest end", yeah, but it's simply false. MPC is better at the "highest end". But you can say it's subjective. So, yeah whatever ..OK, to prove it's not just a matter of opinion, AAC has ~5ms pre-echo (according to Psytel's site, which now is inactive) and MPC has ~2ms pre-echo. "Just as good quality" BUT better pre-echo handling = "BETTER quality". chakachakachakaprrrrrbang! |
|
|
|
|
Sep 28 2002, 02:12
Post
#22
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 1234 Joined: 5-October 01 Member No.: 220 |
QUOTE (SK1 @ Sep 26 2002 - 10:29 PM) QUOTE (Mac @ Sep 26 2002 - 10:03 AM) Hey!!! I'm glad to see this time around some people are voting for AAC! Last time I saw a poll like this it was in the gutters with VQF & WMA.Personally I see AAC as soon to be the best all rounder. Equal quality to MPC at the highest end, the best at 100-150kbs, and not too far behind ogg atm at the low end. With AAC+SBR it will hopefully rival OGG at the low end, being the best or close 2nd in all three areas I guess you can say "Equal quality to MPC at the highest end", yeah, but it's simply false. MPC is better at the "highest end". But you can say it's subjective. So, yeah whatever ..OK, to prove it's not just a matter of opinion, AAC has ~5ms pre-echo (according to Psytel's site, which now is inactive) and MPC has ~2ms pre-echo. "Just as good quality" BUT better pre-echo handling = "BETTER quality". chakachakachakaprrrrrbang! As far as I understand & the tests I have seen MPC has no pre-echo problems, it's inaudible AAC may only have ~5ms pre-echo but it's clearly a problem & I think it can never be as good as MPC/subband encoding. IMO MPC kicks any codecs ass from 160kbps+ |
|
|
|
|
Sep 28 2002, 02:46
Post
#23
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 650 Joined: 28-July 02 From: B'ham UK Member No.: 2828 |
Lol, I knew I'd be jumped on for saying such things!
QUOTE AAC has ~5ms pre-echo and MPC has ~2ms pre-echo To me, these are both very small and so are similar. I can't identify pre-echo in any AAC file I've played. I don't see why 5ms should be a clear problem whereas 2ms is totally undetectable. QUOTE I guess you can say "Equal quality to MPC at the highest end", yeah, but it's simply false. MPC is better at the "highest end". That's battling my uncommon opinion with your more widely believed opinion! Nobody has done the golden thing of ABXing AAC vs MPC in a musical sample other than fatboy! I need to see something I could see a difference in to be swayed. My thoughts on it are that both AAC and MPC are at the point where at 160kb+ they are transparent. Heck, I couldn't ABX an 88kb AAC from the original wave! Unless you have good equipment in a good listening environment, with good hearing and you are actively looking for faults, you won't spot any difference between these codecs. I'm not looking for faults unless I'm testing, I'm looking for good music Seriously, does that make me not an audiophile? (eg, what is one, other than one who loves music?)160kb is the magic number for MPC. Below that point its very nature prevents it from doing well? That just isn't flexible enough! That's my main complaint with MPC. My other 2 complaints was it's community didn't have a Rjamorim in it, and I didn't like it's lowpassing... it looked mechanical, whereas AAC's looks more natural. (you see how er, non technical I can be)
-------------------- < w o g o n e . c o m / l o l >
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 28 2002, 02:54
Post
#24
|
|
|
Founder Group: Admin Posts: 2958 Joined: 26-August 02 From: Nottingham, UK Member No.: 1 |
QUOTE (westgroveg @ Sep 27 2002 - 06:12 PM) As far as I understand & the tests I have seen MPC has no pre-echo problems, it's inaudible AAC may only have ~5ms pre-echo but it's clearly a problem & I think it can never be as good as MPC/subband encoding. IMO MPC kicks any codecs ass from 160kbps+ Hrmm... actually, IIRC, on that page Frank made which showed the graphs of time resolution for various codecs, he stated that AAC could theoretically have better time resolution than MPC/MP2/etc when TNS was being utilized. The problem though is tuning and short block triggering. It might actually have a possibility for even less pre-echo than MPC during certain situations (short blocks + TNS) but actually getting this stuff triggered exactly when it is necessary is much more difficult than the way in which MPC would handle it. So as a result, MPC often sounds much better in that regard. |
|
|
|
| Guest_SK1_* |
 Sep 28 2002, 02:58
Post
#25
|
|
Guests |
"Lol, I knew I'd be jumped on for saying such things!"
Didn't jump on you, really .."I need to see something I could see a difference in to be swayed." More like "hear" .That's easy encode castanets.wav with AAC with archive quality and with MPC with --quality 7 or 8. I'm almost sure you'll notice the difference.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 22nd May 2013 - 20:20 |
