I am glad with Vorbis 1.1RC1 in Q6.. good quality and excellent sound.

Yes, I think in 10 years we will still use lossy audio codecs. The reasoning being that we'll probably be using some other media other than CD. Either DVD-A or another competitor. Consequently, ripping an uncompressed source will be a lot larger than ripping your standard CDs. I think we will all use lossless for whatever CDs we own, and probably a lossy codec for whatever new standard comes out (lossy equating to probably FLAC size or so). Just my guess, though.

I believe that lossy encoding will still be relevant in the future, even when storage becomes so cheap and copious that file sizes are of no concern. The reason for its future relevancy will be due to the need to get as many songs as possible on a cd or player (in whichever format). Even when every car becomes blue-tooth enabled or dvd-r playable, etc. and every player can store gigs of data; small file sizes will still be desirable. People always want the most for the least. When our players can hold a billion songs using lossless compression, many will still choose lossy files in order to hold 10 billion songs- even if they don't have half that number in their collections!!!

Agreed completely Audioprotein. Besides, what's the point in going lossless when most probably can't even ABX cbr 160?

edit: except of course for archiving rare and irreplaceable masters.

It doesn't seem like lossy codecs are ever going to leave the playing field, so why not stick with one which it bound to be kept open like OGG?

The point, for me, is being able to recode my music to the lossy-codec-of-the-day (the one with less artifacts, or the more efficient, or the one that is better supported by my DAP) without any "generation loss".

Sergio

It doesn't seem like lossy codecs are ever going to leave the playing field, so why not stick with one which it bound to be kept, like MP3?

AFAIK, WMA is the only proprietary lossy codec around.

Then there's ATRAC, VQF. Not sure about MP3 Pro.

At the moment, everything I archive goes to ogg, at qval 7. If I need mp3, wma of aac, I reencode with Dbpoweramp. MP3ENC (under Dbpoweramp) is my favorite for swiftly putting things on an mp3-stick now. OGG Lancer build is my favorite for archiving.
Many thanks to Spoon for his great soft !

Dirk.

I use mp3. The reason is because I cannot hear any difference to other formats, is supported by my portable and 'cause it is the most well-known format.

For now: Vorbis at quality 6 (nominal bitrate of 192 kbit/s) for all my songs.

In the past I did MP3 at 128 kbit/s just like everyone else back then. But it started to sound like crap as I got better headphones, and when I tried out a Linux LiveCD I found it wouldn't play MP3s (because of the patent licensing problem), so I got out every master CD I could and recoded to Vorbis. I still code MP3 (with LAME --alt-preset standard) for use in hardware players, such as my dad's car player.

In the future, when I get a bigger hard drive, I'll leave lossy altogether. I already use lossless for archives and for a select few songs.

Surely the results of this poll depend entirely on usage... I maintain a FLAC collection... For playback on my home PC, I naturally playback the FLAC files...

For portable use however I tried OGG -Q6/7 (A Garf Tuned variety) on my old Neuros 80Gb DAP, but had inconsistant playback results - skipping, etc, so ended up switching to MP3 LAME -APX...

However, now that my Neuros is dead (For the second / third time!), and I'm about to obtain my 5G 60Gb iPod - I'll vote for AAC...

The point being, you choose a lossy codec according to your needs first and foremost... Sure I'd prefer to use MPC over all other lossy codecs... But without hardware support, I find it completely redundant... If I'm PC-bound, why play an MPC file when you can simply play the lossless version instead? Then again, with well over 400Gb of FLAC files (and continually growing), I guess space can still be an issue...

There's little reason for this attitude anymore...the other formats have caught up and, in some cases (ie. ogg vorbis), surpassed the quality of that found in mpc in the mid bitrate range at least.

My music collection is in MP3. Most of it is alt preset standard, though a portion of it is in 320 Kbps CBR.

Simply put, MP3 is compatable with just about everything. OGG is probably better quality but it doesent work with my sony MP3 player and anyway I only have a couple CDs to rip.

I use both ogg vorbis and mp3 as I have a portable player that does ogg and a couple that don't.

For the past couple of years I've used MPC and have been happy with it. In the past couple months I've been using an XBOX with XBMC and was happy to see it supported MPC.

I've since reripped my collection to MP3 though because it offers the most compatibility and my girlfriend uses a portable player.

I've been pretty happy with LAME 3.97b2 so I've ditched my MPC collection in favor of MP3.

AAC is my sentimental favorite, but dang me, I still use MP3. I rip with EAC to a FLAC image with cue sheet. I use the FLACs for playback at home through my good audio system. For portable use, I then rip again with EAC/LAME to MP3, individual tracks, constant bitrate, 320 kb/s. For now, with the moldy old MP3 format, at least I know that my rips can be played on the iPod or on anything else on the market.

That being said, on some fine day...

Someone else will market a portable player that is as well designed, as usable, and as plain cool, as the Apple iPod line.

Apple will add support for gapless ripping and playback of AAC to both iTunes and the iPod.

Apple will quit shoving the proprietary Apple Lossless format (that absolutely nobody but them will ever support - even if Apple would let them) down our throats and support FLAC instead.

Apple will, in lieu of or in addition to, gapless support, add support for cue sheets to iTunes and the iPod.

THEN, I will switch to AAC. But by then, we might have antigravity, hyperdrive, and cars that run 100 miles per pound of bull****, of which supplies are abundant, infintely renewable and supplied free of charge by the U.S. government.

Ogg Vorbis all the way!
It doesn't low-pass as badly as the other codecs, and it's constantly improving through the work of the open-source community. There are no license restrictions, and in my opinion, it sounds the best of any lossy codec out there. I encode at Q4, or ~~128kbps, which is a lot better in Vorbis than it is in MP3. It is a superb codec!

Ogg Vorbis here
all encoded with -q 0 --advanced-encode-option lowpass_frequency=999
the majority of which was done with oggenc 1.0.1 (and about half of that majority transcoded from mp3, too lazy to re-rip the cds , newer stuff is encoded with the latest lancer )
with an average bitrate of ~68kbps, i save quite a bit of space on my little 40gb hdd.

after using vorbis.. i can never go back to mp3

Vorbis -q 2 for most songs. GSPlayer on my PDA plays .ogg beautifully Most of them transcoded from MP3 128kbps CBR

Vorbis -q 4 for classical music (mostly guitar pieces -- my brother's collection). Most of them transcoded from MP3 192 kbps CBR.

FLAC if I don't own the CD then to Vorbis -q 2 to fit the smallish CF of my PDA.

Oh and I use Lancer 20051217 tools & DLLs.

Been experimenting with lower -q values for transcoding can't believe my ears... reports to come in listening test section...

I have been using Ogg Vorbis since the 1.0 release, I was pretty amazed with the quality (I still remember the metallic sound at 64kbps but way better than MP3), that in fact I start using -q 2 (96kbps) for all my rips, for me and my ears only (so no TOS8 violation here) 96kbps was even better than MP3 at 128kbps CBR (that was the standard de facto in that time). In my lastest rips I use -q 4 (128kbps) using AoTuV for the best relation quality-space (and based on the listening tests that show Ogg Vorbis like the best at 128kbps).

quite the amazing results as of late with Vorbis destined to snatch second place (1 vote away) from MPC.

Go go Musepack!

Even though I got 200 GB of HD storage space I still don't make use of any lossless codecs at all. MP3 (160 kbps-ish and above) / Vorbis (-q4) is fine to me and plays on my iRiver H120.

Although... from a technical/format point of view I'm more in favour of AAC. AAC-Killer arguments for me are: lack of good hardware support and lack of good (free) encoders that don't come bundled with something like iTunes

Musepack ? No thanks.

Sebi

Now, it's tied

(gee I've been visiting here and keeps forgetting to vote)

This poll was started on Feb 25 2005, 03:46 AM. I wonder if it wouldn't be a good idea to close it on Feb 25 2006, and start a new one, which will be open for one year only. That way, we could analyse the overall behaviour of HA members/readers.
There are currently three polls on the same subject (the current one, and this one plus [URL=http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=24678]this one.
Behaviour are slwoly changing.

AAC: 5.60% -> 11.14% -> 10.99%
MPC: 29.60% -> 28.45% -> 25.18%
Vorbis: 24.85% -> 20.38% -> 25.89%
MP3: 32.32% -> 28.01% -> 35.46%

MP3 isn't dying at all (first poll was started in 2002). AAC has progressed, but is currently not well represented in the polls (it might quickly change). MPC is still popular, but is progressively loosing users.

I agree with you guruboolez. And we must reach at least 1000 votes, that would said more exactly the behaviour of HA members/readers.

my proposal is to add lossless to the poll, yes this is a lossy poll, but will be nice how many people are using only lossless codecs.

Great use of a vote...and now it's surpassed MPC, finally!

I agree with Guru and think a new poll definitely makes sense...because people (and codecs) change.

AAC doesn't excite me one bit...so much hype, so little delivery (with the exception of 64 kbps and below).

Hey,

so you have to do 2 votes, one for high bitrate and transparent/audiophile usage and one for ultra mobile, streaming, etc. low bitrate usage..

I think that MP3 (Lame 3.97b2 and above) and Ogg Vorbis (especially aoTuV beta 4.51/Lancer builts) are better for high bitrate (~130 kbps and above) and HE-AAC and now AACPlus2 is the best for low bitrates (~64 kbps and lower).

But this maybe changes with future aoTuV optimizations like beta 5 or 6..

aoTuV beta 4.51 w/ -q5 and Lame 3.97b2 w/ -v3 --new-vbr are very good, mostly transparently..

best regards,

iNsuRRecTiON

So...it's been over a year since the last one was started. How about a new one? As a lowly board plebian, I have no permission to create a new poll.

Poll closed. Superceded by Your lossy codec of choice in 2006?