Hi everyone.
I've just became a member of this board, after reading the mp3.radified.com' guide to Ripping Cd Audio. I hope i'm not asking the wrong question here, but if i do, please correct me on it; I'm having big problems deciding wich audio format i should use for my music. Since i've now read about and tested the Monkey's Audio format, i find it much better than mp3, but the file sizes also increases dramaticly, which is a bad thing. I've also tested the Lame encoder using different settings. Comparing those to Monkey's Audio, i can't hear much diffenence. Now i just don't know which one to choose, audio quality or file size. Can someone help me out?


Regards,
ZaraL

Based on the bitrate demands, quality wise, you have the following options:

1) <160kbps - Ogg Vorbis (good quality, just make sure that u won't use anything below -q5)

2) 160kbps - 500kbps- MPC (best quality for lossy encoders, use --xtreme which would yield ~200kbps)

3) >500kbps - go lossless

I'd rather go lossless, but that will be a problem because of the file size. I've haven't tried MPC before. Is it better than Lame?

ZaraL

Yes.

Pardon. First off, -q5 will give you bitrates around 160. Secondly, why shouldn't he use lower -q values if he wants to?

Well, because anything less than -q5 wrecks the stereo image. I ABX'ed that for my own pleasure on various samples; anyway, the guy asked for something better than LAME (quality wise) and IMHO as you dip below -q5 ogg doesn't achieve that.

I'd say that (for example) -q1 Ogg beats 80kb/s LAME. It'd be interesting to set up a large listening test at around this bitrate - many more people would be able to participate than even the 128kb/s listening test late last year.

500kbps for MPC is overkill..... for the best quality on lossy format, MPC @ insane is your only choice.

If you want something sounds nearly as good ( or to some people the same ) to MPC but still have a good file size, then use AAC @ around 160 Kbps.

If you want something small as MP3 and better quality than MP3 than ogg is your only choice.

I suggest you get a big harddrivefor Lossless format ( i.emonkey audio ) since they do take up space very quickly.

As you can see from the various replies here, there is no universal "best" lossy encoder - its very subjective, depending on both your hearing and equipment. I'd say Iwod's advice is in general good [I don't agree with the -q5 thing, but then i haven't tested it out properly]. Go and listen to the different codecs at various bitrates, and use what sounds good to you.

If you use lossless, however, you know that the file is an exact duplicate of the original [assuming you're ripping with EAC's secure mode]. So, apart from the extra quality, its useful if you want to re-encode at a later date - to mp3 for a portable, for example. Or if you later upgrade your equipment and find that your 'transparent' lossy encodes suddenly sound dull.

I encode to mpc (anything above --standard sounds good IMO) and then archive the wavs losslessly using FLAC and burn onto cdr for the future. Its a pain having to rerip when something better comes along...

cheers, tonderai

thanx!
Now i'm positive that i'm gonna stick to lossless

ZaraL

Below -q5 you're talking about bitrates <= 128kbps. It's not hard to find and ABX errors at a bitrate that low.

But it will still be better than LAME at the same bitrate.

Both codecs suffer from 'warbling' (or what is it called?), but LAME (much) more so than Ogg.

--
GCP