Only ATRAC3plus @ 48kbps for me. I transcode my 192kbps MP1 files, created in 1999 with the DIST-10 derived SoloX encoder, to 128kbps Blade MP3 (full stereo, to preserve intra-instrument space and airiness), as to be imported into SonicStage for encoding to ATRAC. (Sonicstage only supports Layer 3 files). They sound even better than my CDs! The smooth, liquid midrange is still present in the ATRAC encodings, which still manage to convey a tremendous sense of timing and musicality.

Seriously, I just stick with LAME -V2 (nee "preset standard) as I've done for years. If it isn’t broke, don't fix it

Ah, you scared me there.

Although I have NEVER found any fault with ATRAC (Just ATRAC3 and plus, those two versions suck)

With the soon-to-be-released newer Vorbis tunings from Aoyumi, and Nero's reference AAC encoder, do you think we ought to start a new lossy poll perhaps sometime in August?

Switched to ripping to MP3 no more than a week ago. No longer ripping CDs to Musepack.

Wavpack 320~350 k , transcoded to LAME 3.98a6 -V5 for portable, correction files backed up to DVD.

others : wavpack

Wavpack 400kb , transcoded to LAME 3.97b2 -V5 for portable, no more correction files

I don't rip lossless any longer, I think future will bring secure autoripping players (put your cd in the box, wait, ...done)

MP3: Lame 3.98a6 -V2. I do not use a portable player but if I did, I would use Lame3.98a6 -V5. Gapless is very important for me and AAC does not cut it.

That's hysterical - an encoder or setting so bad the resulting file degrades the songs around it. We could try to hack that into Windows Media Player.

You mean, WMP is not already doing that right now?

WMA10Pro b2 for me, either at 64kbps 2-pass VBR or 25% Quality Mode (75kbps?). Note: Not the so-called "WMAPro+" variation that you can rip to in the WMP11 options.

I guess it sound pretty much fine on my Pocket PC, which is where I listen to my music. Too bad the codec can't be benchmarked or anything because it sounds ... like... something I didn't expect from Microsoft, that's for sure. I sometimes mux it into my OGM video files as the audiotrack. (Did you know that WMA10Pro in .ogg is smaller than the original WMA?! )

Used to be OGG, but since I bought a mac and I have an external medialibrary, I reencoded everything to mp3. However, I keep my favourite artist (Enigma) in FLAC/ALAC

due to the overhead...

WMA10Pro for me too. I can't wait for wmp11b3 or rc or real version because I can't decode 32kbps@44.1khz 16bits stereo.

Well I was an adamant AAC supporter (and have been for years, even way back right to Ivan's original codec), but I've switched back to MP3 because of Microsoft's non-existent MP4 support. I'm now using WMP11 for playback. It's just to damn easy to use, doesn't use a huge amount of resources, and requires no setup or tweaking (I haven't got time to fiddle with foobar2000 anymore, as much as I love it). I'm also using Windows Media Center on my TV, which is what really did MP4 for me. If MS ever support it (hopefully in the next WMP version - yeah right), I'll go back to it, but for now, I'm back on MP3.

Vorbis with Aoyumi's tunings, at the moment I'm desperately waiting for the release of beta5, heh. I love its decent quality in the low-bitrate regions, the fact it's open source and especially its increasing hardware compatibility - I'm the proud owner of both a portable player and a car stereo which support Vorbis playback. The only drawback is that quite a lot of hardware devices don't support reading of Vorbis comments yet, making management of the audio collection really difficult. Same problem with AAC, by the way, my stupid mobile decodes both LC-AAC and HE-AAC, but it doesn't read the goddamn mp4 tags.

Used to be Lame -V 1 or 2 --vbr-new before I discovered ABX tests. Now I do Lame -V 4 and iTunes AAC vbr 128. MP3 encodes faster on my machine than AAC, so it really depends on how much I'm encoding at a time.

I've switched between Vorbis, AAC, and MP3 all year long, unable to settle on one possibility

But after struggling with different formats and their compatibility issues, I have inevitably switched back to MP3.

At least until WMP11/Media Center supports AAC, since I use media center on my home theather system.

-V 5 --vbr-new is my current setting of course

wavpack

Vorbis. The files are smaller @ q6 than MP3 @ 192Kb/s and my ears can't tell the difference between the two.

TOS #8.

Granted, I don't think enforcement is pushed for when you say you *can't* hear a difference.

-brendan

Well.... for my archive I am re-ripping to FLAC (a project I estimate will take at least six months). For my iPod, I am sticking with MP3 (although I am debating between sticking with CBR 192 or VBR).

I've switched a few times. I like Vorbis on my modded iRiver, but my car and gym player are MP3 only. So, it's MP3 for me, just so I only need one library of lossy files, which is already over 70GB.

My home stuff is all FLAC.

This is asking for opinions. Therefore, that rule doesn't apply.

If that was a official comment, then yes, you'd be right.

Ok. Mostly I was joking, I feel bad that it didn't come across that way.

-brendan

mp3 (lame) just because I my ipod is still working - otherwise it would be ogg
flac for cd archive

My choice is MP3, because like many others, my DAP only plays this format
I'm already using OGG on my mobile (64mb) and absolutely (!) love the format, so much quality at medium bitrates, can't be better.

I'm also testing the "new" aac+ format, and it's even better then ogg, so if my future DAP will support AAC+, time for mp3/ogg is over

Don't be too fast concerning that decision. The SBR part of AAC+ and MP3Pro is a real power eater. At least in the case of MP3Pro power consumption is 300% compared to regular MP3 decoding, which can be an extreme annoyance since it drastically lowers a portable's battery life. Too bad I haven't found any reliable sources about SBR and the processing power it needs in conjunction with AAC instead of MP3.

Edit: Please note that the source I posted is quite outdated. More current SBR decoders might be more efficient than the one mentioned by Gabriel.

MP3 (LAME 3.97 V 3)

Best compromise for bitrates (usually 150-170 for my music), encoding time, and compatibility. Sounds fantastic in my car and on my iPod nano.

Still lovin' Vorbis here with my JVC head unit (via USB port), Ipod Nano (with Rockbox) and Iaudio5. :)

Not concerned with AAC until AAC+ becomes widely supported on DAPs of all makes and sizes.

I am proud to say that I always use ogg vorbis when I encode music from CD's on my pc.
For one, it is the only lossy format that works by default on most linux distributions,
and two, quality is just.. better
oh, and three, it's completely open source, how cool is that..

The reason that I don't really need MP3 is that I don't have an MP3 player anymore, and I am looking forward to buy a small media device that is able to play ogg vorbis... maybe a gp2x.. those things are pretty cool.. and not so expensive.. and they run on embedded linux http://www.gp2x.com/

MP3 because, when used intelligently, it does everything I need from an audio codec: good compression, decent sound quality, normalizing possibilities and widespread support. Why change?

I remember reading someone's post on HA that there was a lower complexity SBR decoder (at the cost of some "accuracy") for HE-AAC. Whether it was true or not, I don't know. Plus, optimizations can go a long way, it might not be 300% anymore for modern HE-AAC decoders.

I prefer to use FLAC, but when I use lossy I use MP3 - based entirely on compatibility rather than best sound quality or compression ratios - I know I can pretty much play mp3 files anywhere on anything.

I use Nero AAC (~400 kbps) to rip my CDs (2,000+ tracks). I used to use Vorbis, but changed my mind when I discovered that I could ABX it at 320 kbps. The non-ripped portion of my collection (~400 tracks) is mostly Mp3 though.

Please provide some samples where 320 kbs (-q9) Ogg Vorbis is ABXable and other coders do well? I think it will be very interesting.

Well, it happened on a very broad range of music, including older jazz recordings, pop, classic rock, and modern rock. The problem I noticed was the treble boost that was apparent at lower bitrates was still slightly noticeable even at 320. This was a couple of years ago, but about a week ago I was able to ABX (20/20) samples encoded with aoTuV beta 5.

FYI, I'm 17; I don't listen to extraordinarily loud music or anything, and have no trouble hearing >20kHz tones. I think that's probably the reason. If you insist, I'll provide some examples... err... whenever I get the chance.

EDIT: Aaaand I just realized I linked to copyrighted material with this post. Can't have that. It WAS a listening test... so I'll have to redo it with some royalty-free music.

Sorry, guys.

If you provide <30 sec samples there will be no crime IMHO. Anyway you state you are capable of listening >20 kHz (:-O how old are you? 1-2?) - there is no point in this statement since at -q9 Ogg Vorbis lowpass must work fine. Can you explain what kind of artifacts did you listen out? And by the way I hope you used the latest version of Ogg Vorbis (at least 'aoTuV 2') and not the 1.0 version.
And finaly - at this bitrate all the leading encoders are equaly transparent.

30-second samples! Good idea. Stupid mistake on my part, I guess. Sorry.

As far as the >20kHz thing, sorry if I was misleading, I didn't mean to imply that the artifacts were above 20kHz (and that for some reason Vorbis decided to stop using a lowpass.) I was just trying to give you an idea of the quality of my hearing, which in my opinion is quite good.

For the listening test I did yesterday (the one I removed), I actually used the most recent Xiph.org codec because I was on a different computer and was too lazy to download aoTuV. When I get the chance to redo this, I'll be sure to download it. That test was actually at -q10 (~500 kbps) and I scored 19/20.

The 500 kbps (Xiph.org) test was MUCH harder than the 320 kbps (auTuV beta 5) test I had recently performed. The distortion I heard was a boost of high frequencies (very early parts of hi-hat / cymbal strokes) and an Mp3-like warbling effect in those same frequencies.

Don't try to pull that all-encoders-are-transparent-above-a-certain-bitrate stuff. Different encoders are transparent to different people at different bitrates for a variety of reasons.

I'll do another listening test for you all when I get a chance, but I'm very busy at school lately. Until then, you kind of just have to trust that I wouldn't post a claim as big as this if it were false. This is a community; everything posted in it should benefit the topic in some way.

-Dave

Impressive.

EDIT: That claim about your hearing is also impressive.

Lame MP3

My reason: its compatible with everything out there!

I transcode flac to either lame MP3 or OGG as needed.

I do the same.

And encoding to OGG is so much faster.

hi guys,

as you see I'm new to this forum.

I voted ''other''.

For my music collection I use atrac3/atrac3+.

I think it's the most underrated and surpressed format. Sony won't 'release' it and normal people, who don't use sonicstage or don't own a walkman, always understimate it.

atrac3 is just a great codec for overall audio. It has a very cmfy sound to it. I can't explain it (I know this is not convincing evidence but then I'm not trying to convince any-one ).

atrac3+ has it all: it has 320/352 Kbps bitrates and it sounds stunning, it has a normal (I call it 'medium') 160/192 Kbps bitrate wich still surprises me every time I listen to it and last but not least the trusty 64 Kbps bitrate, this makes my files approx. 2 MB in size and soundquality is very comfy. overall I think atrac sounds natural and warm, with a comfy sense of space in it. I'd mind you that I'm not an audio technicus or anything, but just an audio enthousiast

I must say, I always hated MP3 because of it's awfull sound, but since I've met LAME 3.96 I think MP3 is all-right for now. But it just doesn't sound as warm and comfy as atrac does. I even might encode my music to LAME, but its such a pain in the *** to convert them with EAC because it takes soooooo damn long. But the results EAC give are very very good, I have to say.

PS: all stated above is just my OWN (SUBJECTIVE) OPINION, based on my OWN (SUBJECTIVE) EXPERIENCES. son these ar NO facts at all!!!

greetz

You should read TOS #8.

Wellcome to Hydrogenaudio, atrac.

If you search a bit here I'm sure you will find a lot of discussions and tests about atrac.

This community tries to do its best not to spread "bad" informations, so when you post something like that someone will tell you to read the rules of the forum

Oww, yeah..you right. I'm sorry :$

normally I make clear that it's just my own (subjective) opinion. I've changed that now

@ dutch109:

sorry to you to, I forgot to state that it was my opinion. I completely agree with TOS#8, and I think this is very important on forums like this. I think this is a very good forum, and would never want to mess things up here, so therefore my excuses.

I assume that it is allowed to give your own opinion, as long as you make clear that it's your opinion, and not a fact or something? (like I did now)

thx for the tips ^^

greetz

There is nothing that says that TOS8 does not apply to "opinions". Stating something stupid and then trying to get around TOS8 by saying "thats just my opinion" is a no-go.

You should be able to substantiate your opinion, so we can understand it, and decide it's not something you just made up while high on crack. Because if it's the latter, it has no place here.

@ garf:

I said that my opinion was based on my OWN experiences. I think it should be all-right for one to express his opinion, making clear that it's based on HIS OWN experiences. damn, people fight about these things man......

I thought (excuse me if I'm wrong) that this topic was about your favourite lossy codec. Well, I just explained why I choose atrac. Do I really have to come up with a whole explanation, based on true facts and everything just to make clear why I choose that one???? I just like it, and I've just explained WHY I like it, and mentioned that it's just MY opinion.

so again: sorry that I messed things up in the first post.

greetz

And your opinion is silly and full of nonsense. Thumbs up to Garf for telling it like it is. If it had been me, I'm sure he would have some harsh words for me.