Seems many people here switched from MPC to Vorbis or back to MP3 - Musepack has really become a niche format even in a seperate universe as HA.org is...

Respectable? They should sound exactly like the original (even though they are not, maybe that knowledge is making you think they should sound somewhat "bad")

Oh, and I use MP3. All day, every day. ReplayGain, gapless, tagging, excellent quality at low bitrates, universal compatability, what is not to like?

The keyword is easily. Which is why I am sending letters (in addition to emails) to game producers (Firaxis, EA, LucasFilm) to have them support Vorbis, trumpeting its advantages over MP3.

Like I said, ScummVM already support Vorbis internally. If many people will play Scumm™-based games, they will get more and more exposed of Vorbis.

Ogg Vorbis... for about 3 years now... ever since I first encoded a song with q0 lowpass 20khz with headac3he.. searched for a couple weeks for how to change the lowpass with oggenc.. found it and will never go back to anything else

I have recently been applying vorbisgain as well as re-ripping CDs (a lot of my music used to be transcoded from mp3 )

all encoded with -q 0 --advanced-encode-option lowpass_frequency=999
older tracks with oggenc 1.0.1.. newer ones with lancer aotuv b4.51
(both via dBpowerAMP... it's just easier)

When I got into video capture and encoding, I wanted to save as much space on my music as possible (only have a 40gb hdd)... ~70kbps each song... sufficient for my listening needs

for the ocasional mp3, lame 3.93.1

Like someone has already said, it is sad that we let the market control our choice of codec. There are probably no real reasons NOT to use MP3 at this point, but I just don't WANT to. I want to discourage monopolies (which I hope is the right word), not support them. The companies that make DAPs and sell us digital music shouldn't tell us what formats we can use, we should tell THEM.

I voted Musepack. I just can't seem to let go of it. If I did indeed change formats at this point, it would probably be to Vorbis, for lossy encodings that is. For lossless I use WavPack.

After I heard obvious artifacts with MP3 @ 320 kbps I'll never dare to use it for home stereo. I stick to Vorbis @ 192.

P.S. For those, who stick to TOS#8, please read this thread:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=42844

most of my files are in vorbis, but i am really considering switching back to mp3 once i finally get a portable player.

The short answer is WMA.

The long answer is:
I've done a lot of research on this recently. I started with AAC, since I thought I was going to get an iPod, but the external hard drive I had used for music died before I could back it up (it was only 3 months old).

Anyway, since I had to start again, and had a new laptop as well I did a little more research. I have a lot of files in flac format and found I could get a plug-in to play that in WMP directly. Then I found I could get an audio player that alos supported it (looking at the Cowon U3). So I entered all of the data into Media Player, then moved the files to a network share where I'd be storing the files, and all of the data (song titles, etc.) disappeared. Since flac doesn't save that data in the file itself, it is only in the WMP database, it makes it more difficult to manage the music.

On Extremetech, they have a comparison and found that they liked WMA the best, with AAC a close second for a lossy format. Since there is a lossless version of WMA, and as far as I can tell, any player that playes WMA can play the lossless version, I have re-encoded everything in WMA 128kb for use on my laptop (and future audio player) to save space, and the remaining is still in flac on the server side. I'm hoping WMA11 is capable of compressing on the fly when loading an audio player, and that I can also set up the laptop as an 'audio player' so I can sync with the lossless files on my network. If that's the case then I may convert those to WMA lossless.

Randy

Above 128kbps.



I don't want complete transparency. But I don't want wish-washy underwater sound effects on my encodes either, so I think 128 - 160 is plenty (for me).



I really don't see the point in your comparison. For starters, MP3 is very, very good for the vast majority of people. Just look at this poll: if even the educated geeks at HA love MP3, what to think about the uneducated masses that never heard of Vorbis and AAC?

Also, MP3 just gets the job done, and very well. It might not have the elegance or efficiency of AAC and Vorbis, but it's never what sold it anyway. It simply won't die any time sooner than AAC or Vorbis die, because it has all the inertia in the world backing it up, and it just doesn't seem to be slowing down.

Was it a properly conducted, blind test? Which version of WMA? Pro or Standard have very different performance.Take a look at how the listening tests here are conducted and you will understand the scepticism.



As far as I know that's completely wrong.

No, my post was directed at those who advocate MP3 for its compatibility.

For me 2005 has been the year to re-discover MP3. Decisive factors: the almost non-existant MPC development and, mostly, the adquisition of an MP3 DAP.

Right now, I only use WavPack lossy 320 w/ embedded cuesheet for archiving and LAME V2 for my portable.

The test is 2 years old...I would recommend that Rhammil check out the public listening test completed here @ Hydrogenaudio earlier this year as well. I looked up that Extremetech test and found http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1560786,00.asp

The methodology utilized was single-ABX....the reference file wasn't given to the listeners, just WMA lossless and 4 lossily encoded copies of the same tune burnt to disk (none identified). I'd say the results are dubious at best, outdated at worst.

I'm Vorbis fan since first public betas. Hardware compatibility is not a big deal to me, I'm just waiting for a cheap portable player with Vorbis support, and I can wait for a while. MP3 is a past to me, I don't use it until I have to.

I used Musepack before but I'm leaning back to mp3 these days. LAME became much better then I ever expected and Musepack developement is at a halt.

If WMA is transparent to you fine.

But, WMA Standard is not as good as LAME/VORBIS/AAC. (You can check various BLIND listening test produced here (or this very uggly "brief"))

WMA Pro is very good, but unsupported by most of the players.

AAC via iTunes/Quicktime. I use LAME MP3 as well, but prefer the sound of AAC by a substantial margin, even at higher bitrates.

I use iPods, so no Ogg for me. I am sure it works just fine.

I own most of my music on CDs, so I don't bother to use up drive space on uncompressed versions (it would add up to a bit more than 1TB). I use 128kbps AAC (VBR) for use with my iPods as it sounds very good for the size, much less fatiguing than LAME -V 5 for me. When I want more, I go to my original source CDs.

I wonder what my kids will be using in High School. I'll find out in a few years and report it here.

What about the iPod Nano? It is reasonable (heck, even the iPod video is!)

I think Rockbox support is as close as Vorbis is going to get to current DAPs.

No longer the case if you can rid yourself of Apple's firmware.


Also not the case if this is anything to go by: http://wiki.xiph.org/index.php/PortablePlayers
With Iriver, Samsung and Iaudio supporting it out of the box, I'd say that's pretty substantial.

In response to the few responses to my post above about WMA...

I just did a quick search around various sites to compare what others thought about the quality. My decision to use WMA right now isn't because I think it's the absolute best lossy format out there. I don't think there can be a 'best' format because it's lossy. Everybody will hear things differently. My friends still encode with mp3 to 64-96kb. I'm sure I have much better quality than they do, although I would if I used mp3 at 128kb as well. I'm happy enough with the quality, but then again I'm listening to it through the speakers in my laptop. When I get around to getting an audio player with decent headphones I may feel differently.

I didn't do my own comparisons because it wasn't that important to me. I wanted to save a little space on my laptop, sure, but more importantly I wanted to only have to enter in all of the data only one more time for now. I got tired of re-entering the information again and again. I also like the compatibility factor of wma with a large number of players. While I love the iPod Nano, and it's still one of the options high on my list, I also like some of the other features coming out on other players. I also highly doubt that iTunes/iPod will ever support flac. At this point I may wait until WMP11 comes out before making a final choice on players.

So I'm sure there are studies that will show that WMA is not as good a format as whatever. But there are other studies that say otherwise. I'm certainly not trying to convince everybody that my choice is the one everybody else should make, this was just a poll as to what format each of us is using.

Also, since my CD collection has never become as large as my LP collection was, and probably never will be, I'm also looking into one of the various subscription options which I can't do via iTunes. There's tons of music I'd like to hear every once and a while again, but not enough that I'll go buy it, and not enough that I care if it's a lossless format or not. If anybody has any suggestions of which of the mainstream subscription services is good, I'd love to hear...but that's another thread.

Randy

iRiver, iAudio and Samsung are small players in the DAP world. They are being overwhelmed by Apple. My guess-- but I am no fortune-teller-- is that they will continue to be, just as long as Apple keeps offering the easiest-to-use interface and as long as it enjoys its "fashionable" status. I am not sure I like that myself. Heck, my first DAP was a Rio Karma, for chrissakes! But Rio never quite got their act together. Now I have gone with Apple, because, sincerely I like to keep things simple. So I chose to use the main codec and the main DAP. And I have been around here for more than four years! Do you really think things are/could be different in the outside world?

I like Vorbis, I do. But I think that it will continue to be a niche codec.

Hmm... The studies do look interesting, especially how AAC comes out ahead of WMA right now. I'll also have to find out more about the WMA Pro thing. More food for thought, although now that I'm well on my way to WMA-land it may be a while before I re-encode again...

Randy

I generally agree with you...with Apple's stranglehold, AAC is the only format poised to succeed on a wider scale in the long-term. That said, I won't let that stop me from evangelizing about the pros of going Vorbis.

Indeed! TRUE! I always use vorbis ... go 4 AoTuV encoder & Lancer OPTIMIZED!



I do the same thing...! When I heard vorbis after encoding for the first time.. I was like WOW! Never ever gonna go for any other lossy codec



Yes stick to q6 better than mp3 @ high rates



I never use mp3 ... infact i convert the mp3 files i have to vorbis... Its the best!

I dont give a damn about hardware compatibility!

When u see that Vorbis is better! Than go for it. No looking back

The few times I encode to a lossy format I use AAC.
First of all because its available out-of-the-box in my favorite audio player, Apple iTunes. But also because its one of the best lossy encoders out there.

But I'm mostly using Apple Lossless though!

No change for me so far : wavpack lossy for regular use and mp3 for my ipod.

READ THIS!

Comparison between all lossy Format

Eveything is said over here! About the LEADER IN AUDIO LOSSY COMPRESSION! VORBIS...

NeDtHeOnE. Are you serious?
The article you point to is over 3 1/2 years old. "Posted on Sun Sep 8th, 2002 at 11:47:02 PM GMT"

Nothing wrong with Ogg Vorbis, but its no option for an iPod user like me.

Yeah ... U can go with your lossy codec

But its true , even the latest comparisons ...(had seen it somewhere) show that .. AoTuV b4.51 leads @ most of the bitrates...

I'm a Vorbis fan, have been since I start using Aoyumi's tunings. My first DAP was the Rio Karma, so it made sense to use Vorbis becuase of it's patchy LAME gapless playback. Now I've got a 30gb iPod with Rockbox on and it works like a charm

NeDtHeOnE. You missed the most important part of my original post!
"The few times I encode to a lossy format I use AAC."

Some people are nuts thinking that vorbis / aac is immune to problem samples. Get real, maybe at 500kbps but at 192k there will be some limited samples. I remember a year or so ago people were finding problems for q6 or more regularly. So use what you will but there is no need to claim superiority at high bitrates when all codecs are close.

It is true that @ Higher bitrates all are very similar but not BETTER than Vorbis.

And at Low Bitrates Vorbis rules. Specially @ -q 2 ! For LAME MP3 to be Descent enough You
have to rip @ 192 vbr ... But for Vorbis .. q4 is MORE than enough

Still using MP3!

Waiting a few years for OGG Vorbis hardware, but disappointed. I got a FrontierLabs NEX II and NEX IA, both of them announced "may support OGG by firmware upgrade" but in vain.

I don't want to bring a hard disk outdoor, a CF or SD is a better alternative.

iAudio has plenty flash-based player that might suit you. Few of them has Vorbis support.

Triza

prove it.

I don't think it's possible to prove what is *not* the case (i.e. that God doesn't exist), only what can be verified scentifically...maybe if you rephrased it. "Prove that Vorbis is inferior to other codecs at high bitrates," which, less face it, is also hard to do....especially when there is already evidence from the likes of Guru that Vorbis is king near 200 kbps....

Well, without getting too philosophical here, you can start testing from say 64 kbps, all formats against each other and then move on up through the bitrates. You'll most likely find that Vorbis is on top all the way from 64 kbps to 160 kbps. At ~192 kbps I think you'd be very hard pressed not to score all contestants 5.0s.

The conclusions you would probably draw from such a test would be that Vorbis and AAC become transparent at roughly 140 kbps (depending on how well trained your ears are, of course) and MP3 and WMA need something like 192 kbps to become transparent.

In other words, saying that one format is better than an other at a high bitrate such as 192 kbps is pointless, unless you can actually hear a difference. (Hey there, bat-ears!) However, we can presume that the formats which for most music are transparent already at ~140 kbps will have fewer "problem samples" at 192 than those formats which for music in general become transparent at 192.

good points!

Not really good points. At the last listening test all contestants were tied at 128 kbps, and all scored an average above 4.5. So making a generalized statement that MP3 is worse than Vorbis or AAC at 128 kbps is plain false without backing this up with your own listening test. Besides a few problem samples, you will be hard pressed to find any real disturbing differences at 128 kbps.

I use Vorbis BTW.

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. Any doubts? But I would love to have a Terabyte or two to have this 2000 albums or more on Lossless, because I have an iAudio X5 that can read Flac. And if not that Terabyte solution, then a DAP that can read MPC, and I would very gladly trash the entire collection and have it ripped again, only in MPC.
Cheers!

I switched to Ogg when I got my girlfriend a iRiver H320. Once Rockbox is completed for the H320 we will move to lossless only...cant wait! I am tired of having duplicates for mobility.

lame mp3 until there is a tuned, reliable and free commandline encoder for aac.
LAAC.. Lame ain't an AAC enCoder

I'm not going to settle for Nero or iTunes or whatever

wavpack lossy @350kbps for archiving purposes; mp3@Lame(preset standard) for my portable player

I would like to see these tests.

Isn't WavPack kinda bad at 350? Er... for transcoding purposes at least? It seems to me that >384 was the magic number.

Why not, the iTunes encoder is reliable and free, and can be used as a commandline encoder thru iTunesEncode. The only inconvenience is you have to have iTunes installed.

Not that you could hear a difference or anything...

There isn't a magic number and bitrates are not really affecting transcoding - at least in my tests. You just go for transparent bitrates (>300k) and 350k is already hitting full transparency.

Vorbis. Everthing I own can play Vorbis (well, not my fridge), it's transparent at spacesaving bitrates, it's naturally gapless and got a good and singular tagging system. And almost all decoders support replaygain.