IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >  
Closed TopicStart new topic
Which lossless audio codec do you use?
Which lossless audio codec do you use?
Which lossless audio codec do you use?
ALAC [ 15 ] ** [3.46%]
FLAC [ 228 ] ** [52.66%]
WavPack [ 140 ] ** [32.33%]
YALAC [ 2 ] ** [0.46%]
Monkey's Audio [ 36 ] ** [8.31%]
Shorten [ 0 ] ** [0.00%]
WMA Lossless [ 6 ] ** [1.39%]
TTA [ 0 ] ** [0.00%]
OptimFROG [ 5 ] ** [1.15%]
Other (post details below) [ 1 ] ** [0.23%]
Total Votes: 534
  
krmathis
post Apr 23 2006, 20:42
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 742
Joined: 27-May 02
From: Oslo, Norway
Member No.: 2133



I think its time for an updated "Which lossless audio codec do you use?" thread! smile.gif

Place a vote for your prefered lossless audio codec above.
Feel free to post the reason you prefer it over the others as well...
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Sebastian Mares
post Apr 23 2006, 20:45
Post #2





Group: Members
Posts: 3629
Joined: 14-May 03
From: Bad Herrenalb
Member No.: 6613



WavPack because of its fast encoding and decoding. The compression ratio is not bad either and my Ubuntu supports it as well.


--------------------
http://listening-tests.hydrogenaudio.org/sebastian/
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
goodnews
post Apr 23 2006, 20:50
Post #3





Group: Banned
Posts: 232
Joined: 20-January 06
Member No.: 27228



FLAC due to the very good software support. I don't want to have to re-encode or transfer to another lossless format in the future if it can be avoided. I think FLAC (and ALAC) have the best software support currently. Strength in numbers is the reason I picked FLAC I guess. Plus its free and open unlike ALAC.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
atici
post Apr 23 2006, 21:02
Post #4





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 1180
Joined: 21-February 02
From: Chicago
Member No.: 1367



Wavpack -hmx1 single file image with embedded cuesheet.

This post has been edited by atici: Apr 23 2006, 21:06


--------------------
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.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Synthetic Soul
post Apr 23 2006, 21:08
Post #5





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 4887
Joined: 12-August 04
From: Exeter, UK
Member No.: 16217



WavPack.

I switched from Monkey's Audio to WavPack in 2005. My main consideration is compression rate, but I was concerned by the lack of error tollerance with Monkey's. On consideration I realised that the difference of a few percent between MAC Extra High and WavPack High was negligable when considering my archive of 100-150 GB.

WavPack seemed to have decent compression rates, error tollerance, multichannel support, and I was just really impressed with the way that David reacted to users' requests.

I've said for a while that I will be interested to see the results of this poll. In the last poll WavPack received a measily 15% of the votes. I believe it will be a lot higher this time: it's basically going to be FLAC or WavPack to come top. FLAC may still take it, but WavPack will sure be close.


--------------------
I'm on a horse.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
guruboolez
post Apr 23 2006, 21:10
Post #6





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 3474
Joined: 7-November 01
From: Strasbourg (France)
Member No.: 420



I was originally a Monkey's user, which offered (and still offer) excellent ratio at excellent speed. Then I was looking for formats offering a higher decoding speed: opening these files then appeared as a much more confortable process on Cool Edit/Audition (opening time could be 4 time faster between WavPack or FLAC compared to MAC -normal) and faster decoding also mean faster transcoding.

FLAC and WavPack were the fastest ones (with Shorten... unbeatable but outdated); WavPack finally had my preference, because:
- the tagging system is much more conveniant for my purpose (i.e. much faster)
- seeking was even better than FLAC (which is already very good)
- I got better encoding ratios
- I liked the red icon rolleyes.gif
- David is a very nice guy (it's not a necessary condition: I also used MPC in the past ...)

This post has been edited by guruboolez: Apr 23 2006, 21:11
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
jmartis
post Apr 23 2006, 21:41
Post #7





Group: Members
Posts: 381
Joined: 9-April 06
From: Czech Republic
Member No.: 29311



Today I've voted in one lossless poll, now here's another! My decision hasn't changed though... WavPack.

[edit: typo]

This post has been edited by jmartis: Apr 23 2006, 21:52
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
DreamTactix291
post Apr 23 2006, 22:09
Post #8





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 552
Joined: 9-June 04
From: A place long since forgotten...
Member No.: 14572



Lots of lossless polls at once laugh.gif

Hasn't changed though. WavPack still for me for the same reasons I posted just minutes ago.


--------------------
Nero AAC 1.5.1.0: -q0.45
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Josef K.
post Apr 23 2006, 22:18
Post #9





Group: Members
Posts: 111
Joined: 25-November 04
From: village
Member No.: 18344



QUOTE (guruboolez @ Apr 23 2006, 10:10 PM) *
- I got better encoding ratios
Could you please tell the difference? I don't want to infirm your statement at all, I'm just curious. I've got huge Flac collection and if I could save say 2% (6 GB in my case) of space by reencoding, I will seriously consider to do it. (It must be horrible work anyway)
So: what do you think? Is it worth to reencode (or transcode...) from Flac to WavPack?
Thanks for response.


--------------------
Is there a difference between yes and no?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
vitos
post Apr 23 2006, 22:19
Post #10





Group: Members
Posts: 103
Joined: 7-February 05
From: Warsaw, Poland
Member No.: 19663



Heh, the day of lossless polls. smile.gif

I used to be Monkey's Audio user because of its strong compression. However I became unsatisfied with its low decompression speed when I started regular conversions to lossy formats for my portable flash player. Also growing collection and shrinking HDD space made me think to use lossy formats for some less critical music.

Then I found WavPack. A lot faster with small compression loss (vs Monkey's) and with hybrid option. And this format is still evolving, whereas any news for Monkey are hardly possible.
My spell: -b360cmx


--------------------
Not really a Signature.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Shade[ST]
post Apr 23 2006, 22:35
Post #11





Group: Members
Posts: 1189
Joined: 19-May 05
From: Montreal, Canada
Member No.: 22144



QUOTE (Josef K. @ Apr 23 2006, 05:18 PM) *
I've got huge Flac collection and if I could save say 2% (6 GB in my case) of space by reencoding, I will seriously consider to do it. (It must be horrible work anyway)
So: what do you think? Is it worth to reencode (or transcode...) from Flac to WavPack?
Thanks for response.

Wait until YALAC final comes out : it's blazing fast, and has great compression ratios (just look at the YALAC threads, and at synthetic soul's posts.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
seanyseansean
post Apr 23 2006, 23:05
Post #12





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 487
Joined: 12-August 02
From: Cheltenham, UK
Member No.: 3029



QUOTE (guruboolez @ Apr 23 2006, 09:10 PM) *
David is a very nice guy (it's not a necessary condition: I also used MPC in the past ...)


Was that really necessary?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
keytotime
post Apr 23 2006, 23:22
Post #13





Group: Members
Posts: 120
Joined: 22-December 05
Member No.: 26582



I'm also waiting for YALAC to come out.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Supacon
post Apr 23 2006, 23:41
Post #14





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 543
Joined: 19-March 04
From: Alberta, Canada
Member No.: 12841



Like guruboolez, I used to use Monkey's audio because it first seemed the obvious choice. Good compression speed, and high efficiency. It's probably got the highest compression speed to compression ratio of any codec.

After transcoding my collection several times, however, I decided that I should switch to FLAC because its decompression time is much much faster which outweighs the small size increase. FLAC seems to be one of the most popular and supported codecs which is a big plus (although I don't think it makes a huge amount of difference in my application).

I think that wavpack offers great advantages, like better compression and still good speed, but I don't think anything quite has as good of a balance between decompression speed and efficiency as FLAC does yet. I'd probably use WavPack in lieu of monkey's now if I needed better compression.

YALAC looks really promising too, and when finalized, I'd switch to that in a heartbeat if it doesn't have any huge disadvantages over the other codecs.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Triza
post Apr 23 2006, 23:58
Post #15





Group: Members
Posts: 367
Joined: 16-November 03
Member No.: 9867



FLAC because

1) Extremely thorough testbed. So I can be assured that if my compile passes the tests, then it must be OK.

2) --verify option, which decodes the encoded singnal during the encoding to ensure that no SW or other errors occurred.

3) Inbuilt MD5 signature over the audio content, which is essential to be able to carry out truly reliable integrity check.

4) Vorbis tagging. I love it and since my choice of lossy is vorbis, this makes convesion very trouble free.

5) Good error recovery.

6) Cross-platform. This is an absolute must for me.

7) Good command line interface. This is an absolute must for me.

8) Widespread. Best SW/HW support.

9) Stable. No compatibility breaks. Few but reliable releases.

10) Excellent PC HW tester. If you have a flaky HW FLAC is likely to exhibit corruptions.


Maybe Wavepack or others have these, but in 2003 it did not. I do not like changes. Also 2% size difference does not cut it for me. In fact I always use compression level 5.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
flcpge
post Apr 24 2006, 00:10
Post #16





Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 15-December 05
From: California
Member No.: 26415



I also use FLAC. Too lazy to learn anything else right now, but that may change in the future.

This post has been edited by flcpge: Apr 24 2006, 00:11
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
haregoo
post Apr 24 2006, 00:34
Post #17





Group: Members
Posts: 192
Joined: 16-January 06
Member No.: 27155



FLAC for faster/stable decoding speed.
Thanks developers & john33's faster encoding compile.

I will switch to YALAC when get matured.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Mirage2k
post Apr 24 2006, 03:23
Post #18





Group: Members
Posts: 92
Joined: 24-April 05
From: Washington, DC
Member No.: 21663



ALAC. I'm on a Mac--'nuff said. Although I guess now with Max it wouldn't be as much of a chore to maintain and transcode from a FLAC library as it used to be.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
iGold
post Apr 24 2006, 07:48
Post #19





Group: Members
Posts: 139
Joined: 23-December 05
Member No.: 26599



FLAC for vorbis comments and good command line support.

I wrote shell script for Linux to encode from one .flac with embedded cuesheet to per-track .ogg files copying common and per-track .flac comments (my own scheme compatible with foorbar 0.9 one) to the result files. The ability to decode specified track from such .flac only with command line switch is very handy for me, also common tagging format with ogg vorbis allows easy transfer of metadata.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
micimaci
post Apr 24 2006, 11:03
Post #20





Group: Members
Posts: 48
Joined: 16-April 03
Member No.: 6006



WavPack, but lookin forward to YALAC
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Zurman
post Apr 24 2006, 11:25
Post #21





Group: Members
Posts: 238
Joined: 22-February 04
Member No.: 12193



Monkey 3.99 High, because of its good ratios. I'm planning to switch to wavpack one day though.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
zombiewerewolf
post Apr 24 2006, 12:17
Post #22





Group: Members
Posts: 119
Joined: 27-January 03
From: Perth, AU
Member No.: 4755



Wavpack for me.

The first lossless encoder I used is LA rolleyes.gif because it got the first rank in encoding ratio.
After encoded 2 albums, I quitted, cannot stand its slowness.

I was looking for a new format for archiving my collection.
I read this page on wiki section and choose the one that has more green colour. biggrin.gif

Wavpack caught my attention (no orange colour). It has very fast speed in both encoding and decoding. So I tried and love it since.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
man
post Apr 24 2006, 17:40
Post #23





Group: Members
Posts: 51
Joined: 16-April 03
From: Paris
Member No.: 6007



I used Monkey's Audio [high] for 3 years.

Then I changed 16 months ago to WavPack [-m -x4] because of :

- fast decoding speed,
- still with a very good compression ratio,
- very fast seeking making the payer more responsive (seek can be controlled from remote control)

ReplayGain supported by the Winamp plug-in was also a reason, it can be used by Meedio, my interface of choice.

This post has been edited by man: Apr 24 2006, 17:41
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
jcoalson
post Apr 24 2006, 19:03
Post #24


FLAC Developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 1526
Joined: 27-February 02
Member No.: 1408



another interesting thing so far... compared to the last poll, the FLAC percentage is the same (ALAC too) but wavpack has pretty much eaten up everyone else.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
guruboolez
post Apr 24 2006, 19:20
Post #25





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 3474
Joined: 7-November 01
From: Strasbourg (France)
Member No.: 420



...and compared to an earlier poll it seems that Monkey's was replaced by WavPack in the heart (and hard drive) of non-flac HA.org users wink.gif

ALAC score is pretty low compared to the absolute number of iPod supporting this format. huh.gif

This post has been edited by guruboolez: Apr 24 2006, 19:21
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >
Closed TopicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 20th April 2014 - 01:27