IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

> 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

11 Pages V  « < 6 7 8 9 10 > »   
Closed TopicStart new topic
Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?, Format popularity
What codec do you use predominately in your collection?
What codec do you use predominately in your collection?
MP3 [ 447 ] ** [46.04%]
Ogg Vorbis [ 266 ] ** [27.39%]
MP4-AAC [ 123 ] ** [12.67%]
MPC [ 94 ] ** [9.68%]
WMA [ 13 ] ** [1.34%]
Other [ 28 ] ** [2.88%]
Total Votes: 1166
  
pepoluan
post Apr 13 2006, 13:19
Post #176





Group: Members
Posts: 1455
Joined: 22-November 05
From: Jakarta
Member No.: 25929



Whoopsie. My bad. The built-in input plugin for MP3 does not support RG. You must use Shibatch's in_mpg123.dll (which I use now)

But Winamp's built-in input plugin for Vorbis does support RG! Go Vorbis! Heh heh heh tongue.gif


--------------------
Nobody is Perfect.
I am Nobody.

http://pandu.poluan.info
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
VEG
post Apr 14 2006, 16:08
Post #177





Group: Members
Posts: 61
Joined: 14-March 05
Member No.: 20628



Ogg Vorbis! Best choice.


--------------------
Sorry for my English.
http://vorbis.org.ru/
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
pepoluan
post Apr 14 2006, 18:39
Post #178





Group: Members
Posts: 1455
Joined: 22-November 05
From: Jakarta
Member No.: 25929



QUOTE (pepoluan @ Apr 13 2006, 07:19 PM) *
Whoopsie. My bad. The built-in input plugin for MP3 does not support RG. You must use Shibatch's in_mpg123.dll (which I use now)

But Winamp's built-in input plugin for Vorbis does support RG! Go Vorbis! Heh heh heh tongue.gif
Just FYI, MediaMonkey's built-in input plugins uses in_mpg123.dll, and so it supports RG for all formats it can play. (Sadly, only track-mode RG).


--------------------
Nobody is Perfect.
I am Nobody.

http://pandu.poluan.info
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
iwod
post Apr 15 2006, 01:09
Post #179





Group: Members
Posts: 210
Joined: 15-January 02
Member No.: 1035



I use either Mp3 or AAC because of their Hardware Support.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Mirage2k
post Apr 15 2006, 06:26
Post #180





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



I switched from AAC back to MP3 at the end of 2005 and haven't looked back.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Mgz
post Apr 15 2006, 06:55
Post #181





Group: Members
Posts: 155
Joined: 11-December 02
From: Alberta
Member No.: 4049



MP3 since it is so easy to encode... lastest lame MP3 and alt-preset extreme

with AAC, I like AAC but, hmmm , so hard to choose... Nero or Apple, and I hate iTunes T_T


--------------------
still LAME 3.96.1 --preset extreme -q 0 -V 0 -m s at least until 2005.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
k.eight.a
post Apr 17 2006, 03:04
Post #182





Group: Members
Posts: 434
Joined: 31-October 03
From: Europe, CZ
Member No.: 9571



For me Lame MP3 (-V 2 --vbr-new -Y) exclusively smile.gif

Below mentioned points clearly covers my thoughts on this topic... wink.gif
QUOTE (halb27 @ Apr 3 2006, 08:35 AM) *
mp3 (Lame): very good quality, low battery drain on mobile DAPs, universal usage.
QUOTE (Andavari @ Apr 3 2006, 08:46 PM) *
MP3 for the obvious reason it's supported practically everywhere. It's too bad open-source formats don't have as much support.
QUOTE (Mike Giacomelli @ Apr 4 2006, 02:44 AM) *
As much as I like Ogg, MP3 has amazing compatability.
QUOTE (AtaqueEG @ Apr 6 2006, 10:53 PM) *
Oh, and I use MP3. All day, every day. ReplayGain, gapless, tagging, excellent quality at low bitrates, universal compatability, what is not to like?
WavPack (-m -h) for lossless cool.gif


--------------------
Sorry for my poor English, I'm trying to get better... ;)
"The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled, was convincing the world he didn't exist."
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Klyith
post Apr 17 2006, 05:28
Post #183





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 352
Joined: 10-July 04
From: Albany NY USA
Member No.: 15259



Ogg Vorbis and FLAC for me.

I switched to Ogg from musepack at the beginning of this year. Even before that I was ripping classical stuff in ogg because the long tracks made the seek situation with MPC intolerable. Then at Christmas time I was ripping music from some people and thought, "Why am I still using a near-dead format?" I don't have the ears to appreciate it. So the switch to ogg was made.

I have a MP3 only portable, but I don't find that maintaining a seperate collection is that big a problem. Mostly because I don't change the music on it all that frequently...
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
AtaqueEG
post Apr 17 2006, 06:17
Post #184





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 1336
Joined: 18-November 01
From: Celaya, Guanajuato
Member No.: 478



With software like MAREO around, your choice of codecs easy to achieve, but I wonder, is there really a point in having the same tracks on lossy twice? Is there a resaon I don't see?


--------------------
I'm the one in the picture, sitting on a giant cabbage in Mexico, circa 1978.
Reseņas de Rock en Espaņol: www.estadogeneral.com
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Firon
post Apr 17 2006, 08:51
Post #185





Group: Members
Posts: 830
Joined: 3-November 05
Member No.: 25526



One for use on the PC, the other for the portable, and the FLAC relegated to backup on DVDs or something?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Klyith
post Apr 18 2006, 01:34
Post #186





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 352
Joined: 10-July 04
From: Albany NY USA
Member No.: 15259



QUOTE (AtaqueEG @ Apr 17 2006, 01:17 AM) *
With software like MAREO around, your choice of codecs easy to achieve, but I wonder, is there really a point in having the same tracks on lossy twice? Is there a resaon I don't see?
QUOTE (Firon @ Apr 17 2006, 03:51 AM) *
One for use on the PC, the other for the portable, and the FLAC relegated to backup on DVDs or something?

If you were asking about why I said Ogg and FLAC, it should have been Ogg or FLAC. Lossless gets used for any cds that are scratched bad enough that ripping them in EAC is slow and painful. Also sometimes when I borrow a cd from a friend. I don't bother making backups of all my cds, I figure anything that would distroy my cd collection would get the backups too.

But yeah, I keep duplicate mp3s for my Rio of most stuff I rip to Ogg on a 60gb usb drive. It's a much smaller job since I never load classical (and hardly ever jazz) to the portable.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
pika2000
post Apr 20 2006, 07:59
Post #187





Group: Members
Posts: 207
Joined: 29-May 04
Member No.: 14387



Lame MP3 to be specific. Main reason is compatibility and hardware/software support. I mean, even Sony HiMDs can play MP3s now. Also, Lame is well developed and tested, and provide excellent quality.

Atrac: Mainly for gapless. Untill manufactures get their acts together to support gapless (OGG support but no gapless?) or Rockbox takes over all DAPs firmwares, I'll stick with Atrac.


--------------------
twitter.com/pika2000
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Maglor
post Apr 21 2006, 14:56
Post #188





Group: Members
Posts: 24
Joined: 14-July 04
From: VN Gaia
Member No.: 15455



[quote name='de Mon' date='Apr 9 2006, 07:36 PM' post='380604']
[quote name='Maglor' post='380499' date='Apr 9 2006, 03:56 AM']
dry.gif I seem to to be the only one in here that has about 2000 albums all in WMA at 192Kbps. Do I seem stupid? Well, I may very well be one. But all I know is that not even with Lame can MP3 at the same Bitrate be better than WMA... tested.
[/quote]

blink.gif
I would like to see these tests. cool.gif
[ rolleyes.gif /quote]

I've tested with these hears of mine... it's much easier. Try ripping it at the same bitrate and then compare. rolleyes.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
de Mon
post Apr 21 2006, 15:19
Post #189





Group: Members
Posts: 474
Joined: 1-December 02
Member No.: 3940



QUOTE (Maglor @ Apr 9 2006, 03:56 AM) *
I've tested with these hears of mine... it's much easier. Try ripping it at the same bitrate and then compare. rolleyes.gif


WMA better than others? I have a suspicion you have never heard of ABX tests. Am I right?


--------------------
Ogg Vorbis for music and speech [q-2.0 - q6.0]
FLAC for recordings to be edited
Speex for speech
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
k.eight.a
post Jun 25 2006, 16:18
Post #190





Group: Members
Posts: 434
Joined: 31-October 03
From: Europe, CZ
Member No.: 9571



@ Maglor: Have you ever heard of HydrogenAudio Terms of Service? wink.gif

TOS #8: laugh.gif
All members that put forth a statement concerning subjective sound quality, must -- to the best of their ability -- provide objective support for their claims. Acceptable means of support are double blind listening tests (ABX or ABC/HR) demonstrating that the member can discern a difference perceptually, together with a test sample to allow others to reproduce their findings. Graphs, non-blind listening tests, waveform difference comparisons, and so on, are not acceptable means of providing support. laugh.gif
QUOTE (Maglor @ Apr 21 2006, 15:56) *
QUOTE (de Mon @ Apr 9 2006, 07:36 PM) *
QUOTE (Maglor @ Apr 9 2006, 03:56 AM) *
dry.gif I seem to to be the only one in here that has about 2000 albums all in WMA at 192Kbps. Do I seem stupid? Well, I may very well be one. But all I know is that not even with Lame can MP3 at the same Bitrate be better than WMA... tested.
blink.gif
I would like to see these tests. cool.gif
rolleyes.gif
I've tested with these hears of mine... it's much easier. Try ripping it at the same bitrate and then compare. rolleyes.gif


--------------------
Sorry for my poor English, I'm trying to get better... ;)
"The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled, was convincing the world he didn't exist."
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lolent
post Jun 26 2006, 18:47
Post #191





Group: Members
Posts: 13
Joined: 13-June 06
Member No.: 31797



The Musepack codec has my preference to backup my CDs in a lossy format biggrin.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Diow
post Jun 26 2006, 23:48
Post #192





Group: Members
Posts: 94
Joined: 4-June 06
From: Ponta Grossa,PR
Member No.: 31450



I still in mp3 'cause your quality and great compatibity with a great number of devices.
But in the nexts years i think in replace mp3 for ogg,aac or mpc they starting to offering great quality and when the implementations of these formats are in the begining,except in mpc, of the mp3 are so close of the end.


--------------------
Sorry for my bad english.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
xequence
post Jun 27 2006, 16:24
Post #193





Group: Members
Posts: 106
Joined: 1-December 05
Member No.: 26127



QUOTE
But all I know is that not even with Lame can MP3 at the same Bitrate be better than WMA... tested.


Accually, I heard that WMA is highly optimized for low bitrates (64Kbps), so they can do the marketing stuff (You know... "We beat MP3 at 128, with our 64!" stuff), but it fails considerably at higher bitrates. I dont know where I heard this, I havnt done tests, so dont warn me or anything. It could very well be wrong, but it does sound like something microsoft would do.


--------------------
And if you believe theres not a chance to die...
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
seanyseansean
post Jun 27 2006, 17:06
Post #194





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



QUOTE (Seymour @ Apr 13 2006, 00:34) *
mpc (Musepack) for home collection (-q 5)


Same here. I've taken to backing up my CDs to flac with embedded cue sheets (can I put the album art in there too?), and as of now have 80gb of new CDs that I need to back up. I was going to use the opportunity to change to a more supported codec than musepack but as far as I can see it:

1. I don't understand all the aac variations/encoders, and which is the 'best'. I tried aac on my smartphone and ipod/rockbox and they both sucked power and jumped about, whereas the musepack files playback fine whilst using minimal cpu.

2. I need to transcode to mp3 for my girlfriends player occasionally and i've never had a problem (i.e. an obvious artifact) transcoding from musepack.

3. Ogg again is too slow on smartphone and rockbox, especially compared with mpc.

I'd love to change but where is the obvious replacement? mp3 would be fine but even cloth eared me has ABXd artifacts fairly easily, though admittedly that isn't with the latest lame encoder. I need something thats efficient, easy to encode/decode, supported on smartphone (tcpmp) and rockbox(ipod) that doesn't transcode too badly to mp3.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Gow
post Jun 27 2006, 18:15
Post #195





Group: Members
Posts: 233
Joined: 14-June 06
From: Fort Wayne, IN
Member No.: 31824



For lossy in my music folder, Nero AAC 1.0.0.2 (26 May 2006) -q 0.55
Due to it being true VBR AAC.

OR, Ogg aoTuV -q 6.0 ...can't decide on which to go with as Rockbox or native support is keeping me up in the air.

All CDs are ripped to a single wavpack file with cue sheet and eac log, than burnt to DVDs for backup of my audio collection. Than later I can take the archive, pop it in foobar200 and convert to whatever lossy format catches my listening fancy. With the lossless backup I am not stuck or feel confined to a single format.

Just using Nero AAC at the moment due to its VBR and my possible DAP will be an iPod...though the Cowon iAudio X5L is nice too. Pretty much the reason I have been making a lossless audio archive my music collection to save me the hassle of being stuck.

- Gow

Edit: Added in my ogg support biggrin.gif

This post has been edited by Gow: Jun 27 2006, 18:18


--------------------
Zune 80, Tak -p4 audio library, Lossless=Choice
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Lashiec
post Jun 27 2006, 18:45
Post #196





Group: Members
Posts: 60
Joined: 29-May 06
Member No.: 31289



Vorbis here! I've been using the format since 2002, and I won't stop using it, unless there's a major catastrophe leaving AAC as the only survivor. In that case, I have FLAC copies of the files biggrin.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
kotekzot
post Jun 27 2006, 23:22
Post #197





Group: Members
Posts: 26
Joined: 9-May 06
Member No.: 30599



lame 3.97 apx. excellent compatibility and quality.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
rlbest
post Jun 28 2006, 03:22
Post #198





Group: Members
Posts: 28
Joined: 16-May 06
Member No.: 30822



I encode my vast collection of harpsichord music at 5kbps Blade MP3 and it sounds AWESOME!


--------------------
I think something went wrong and now I own a blind camel.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Firon
post Jun 28 2006, 05:16
Post #199





Group: Members
Posts: 830
Joined: 3-November 05
Member No.: 25526



You should at least pick a real bitrate, the lowest MP3 can go is 8. tongue.gif

This post has been edited by Firon: Jun 28 2006, 05:59
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
rlbest
post Jun 28 2006, 05:24
Post #200





Group: Members
Posts: 28
Joined: 16-May 06
Member No.: 30822



QUOTE (Firon @ Jun 27 2006, 23:16) *
You should at least pick a real bitrate, the lowest it can go is 8. tongue.gif


Not MY version of the Blade encoder. It can go as low as -20. Of course, you can't hear anything and the tracks start sucking bits out of other songs. And then the universe implodes. So it's best to go with a positive number.

This post has been edited by rlbest: Jun 28 2006, 05:27


--------------------
I think something went wrong and now I own a blind camel.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

11 Pages V  « < 6 7 8 9 10 > » 
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: 18th April 2014 - 14:31