Which lossy format are you encoding?

[krazyd]

I know this sort of thing has been done to death :p but I just thought that I'd see what was most popular around here.... :)
MP3, MP4 (AAC), Ogg, MPC, WMA, MP3pro are your initial choices.
If you have a specific reason for using a certain format, please let us know about it.

[drewkeller]

ogg
sounds the best to me for the same file size.

[Tokelil]

I like Ogg for its good sound and because its Open source!

[Wild Bill]

I use MP3. I'd use OGG, but my NOMAD Jukebox 2 doesn't play those yet.

[Hanzo]

I use MP3. I have used the other formats but I like MP3 better. OGG is pretty cool but I can't listen OGG files on my car stereo or on my Discman.

[Lich]

Yes, my iRiver will support Ogg only next month (I hope). So I forced to use preferably MP3.
But when there's need in sending some music by email, I choose Ogg.
Why? It give me outstanding sound quality at lowest bitrates.

[Cabinessence]

I enjoy MP3 at the bitrate of 192 kbps. I always rip my CD's in CBR 192 (with QCD / Lame encoder).

[Hanzo]

I enjoy MP3 at the bitrate of 192 kbps. I always rip my CD's in CBR 192 (with QCD / Lame encoder).
Yeah... that's my standard. When I download from Kazaa, I burn them to a
CD-RW and then rip them with QCD at 192 kbps using the Rocksteady plugin to level them. May not be the coolest method but I'm happy with it.:)

[Tokelil]

Why not just use mp3gain (http://mp3gain.sourceforge.net/) to normalize your downloaded mp3s? Burning them to a CD and re-ripping them will at best mean a bigger file with the same quality and more likely a larger file with worse sound quality!

[krazyd]

I enjoy MP3 at the bitrate of 192 kbps. I always rip my CD's in CBR 192 (with QCD / Lame encoder).
Interesting. Why do you use Constant Bitrate instead of Variable (like -alt-preset standard). Is it so that you always get predictable file sizes?

[krazyd]

Yeah... that's my standard. When I download from Kazaa, I burn them to a
CD-RW and then rip them with QCD at 192 kbps using the Rocksteady plugin to level them. May not be the coolest method but I'm happy with it.:)
As tokelil pointed out, this practice will degrade the sound quality of your files considerably. MP3gain will do a good job of levelling the volume of the files without losing any sound quality.

[krazyd]

I haven't mentioned why my current choice is MP4 (AAC) :eek:, so here goes...

The format gives 'transparent' results for me at bitrates of ~160 to ~200 (VBR) which is below that of any other format I've tested (for the music I have, this includes MPC :D)
It is a format being pushed by Apple and others to be supported by many hardware/software companies. It's early days yet, and not many portable players currently use it, but the list is growing rapidly. :)
I can use the Nero AAC encoder with Exact Audio Copy for high quality results. The Nero AAC encoder seems to have the most development being done at the moment (much more than Ogg, MPC etc.), and it is already very high quality.
Edit 2: It is freely downloadable from Nero, and the HE setting gives amazing results at low bitrates (60-70).


That's all I can think of at the moment...

Edit: I forgot to mention that I use LAME -preset standard for my portable (iRiver iMP-400)

[Cabinessence]

Interesting. Why do you use Constant Bitrate instead of Variable (like -alt-preset standard). Is it so that you always get predictable file sizes?
Yes. And for a strange reason I kinda want my MP3's in a constant bitrate instead of Variable. Dunno why, though. :p

[Young Twig]

I use MP3. Constant bitrate.... No reason. It just seems standard and normal... why not?

[chicubs]

OGG. Its awesome.

[Hanzo]

Why not just use mp3gain (http://mp3gain.sourceforge.net/) to normalize your downloaded mp3s? Burning them to a CD and re-ripping them will at best mean a bigger file with the same quality and more likely a larger file with worse sound quality!I use it, but just on my fast machine; because I am currently traveling. You'll see I have a laptop and on my laptop I don't have a high end sound (crappy embedded speakers and crappy headphones plus a crappy soundcard :( ) and I re-rip those files at 128 kbps so the files aren't that big. But I don't keep all my collection on my laptop. That would fill this little hard drive. But on my other machine I use MP3 Gain and a constant 192 bitrate. I think it is pretty good standard and gives me good results.

I just didn't want to say I have a crappy laptop... jajaja :cool:

Also I'm happy re-ripping my MP3's and I don't hear the difference in sound in my laptop and I don't think they are any bigger in filesize as a fact I see the files are smaller.

Anyways thanks for you suggestion.

[JEdwardP]

I normally use Ogg to encode music, and Speex to encode Audiobooks or other spoken word recordings.

I see portability as the only advantage of MP3, and since I don't often leave my hermitage, I have little need for portability :)

Not that I'm an MP3 hater; I download them for listening and burning, I just rarely encode to MP3.

[MrZebra]

I make 4 copies of each CDs I buy...

1. Ogg q8 ~256kbps VBR to listen to at home.
2. Ogg q2 ~96kbps VBR to listen to at work.
3. QCDLame MP3 320kbps to listen on my portable when I only listen to one album on that trip (Going to/from work)
4. QCDLame MP3 alt-preset-standrad when I wanna bring 3-4 albums on my portable.

I always bring my "Current Rotation" on a CD-RW along with my portable's USB Cable to "Change Disk" while at work so that I can listen to something else on my way back.

[Roj]

OGG for my internal servers, MP3 for my portable and car and also material I downloaded. OGG has better quality, gapless play, extensibility and I believe a bright future.

It's also free.

None of the other qualify in at least one or more of those departments.

[chicubs]

Major advantage of Ogg:

"ogg" sounds cooler than "mp3"


...oh also, theres that big difference in quality thing

[#The fREaK!]

I use MP3 for my portable MP3 player, and then I use quite high bitrates. Otherwise I hardly ever encode. Normally I just keep the original, no matter what format it is, except .wma files that I always throw away. :) Then I just play it using QCD and a bunch of DSPs.

[brian]

Yes, ogg is very good, but I find that mpc is even better for the kind of music I play - much clearer and crisper in the upper pitch range, and a richer, more rounded effect overall. Of course the files take up more hard drive space, but I still have plenty of free space so that isn't a worry.

[blackspawn]

I enconde all my music in ogg vorbis format, it sounds better than mp3 (at least for me...) and is smaller in comparison. But since the ogg format is not very well spread out I have a lot of music I downloaded from the net that's in mp3 format (mostly 160Kbps CBR).

By the way you ppl that encode in ogg which settings (and prog) do you use?

[Roj]

Yes, ogg is very good, but I find that mpc is even better for the kind of music I play - much clearer and crisper in the upper pitch range, and a richer, more rounded effect overall. Of course the files take up more hard drive space, but I still have plenty of free space so that isn't a worry.
I agree that mpc sounds better - I just see it as not having a future. It uses proprietary technology which means a license must be paid to use it and so hardware vendors will never support it when there are free alternatives.

[Roj]

I enconde all my music in ogg vorbis format, it sounds better than mp3 (at least for me...) and is smaller in comparison. But since the ogg format is not very well spread out I have a lot of music I downloaded from the net that's in mp3 format (mostly 160Kbps CBR).

By the way you ppl that encode in ogg which settings (and prog) do you use?
I habitually use Q8.

[brian]

I agree that mpc sounds better - I just see it as not having a future. It uses proprietary technology which means a license must be paid to use it and so hardware vendors will never support it when there are free alternatives.
I don't really mind if a particular audio format doesn't have a future; I just want to get the best from my music collection as it now stands. It's really a nostalgia collection - my 1,500 favourite tracks from the period 1955 to 1971 - so I don't plan to add to it over time. As I see it, I'd be shooting myself in the foot if I made my choice of (lossy) format on any other basis than that of overall sound quality.

[Roj]

I don't really mind if a particular audio format doesn't have a future; I just want to get the best from my music collection as it now stands. It's really a nostalgia collection - my 1,500 favourite tracks from the period 1955 to 1971 - so I don't plan to add to it over time. As I see it, I'd be shooting myself in the foot if I made my choice of (lossy) format on any other basis than that of overall sound quality.
I can appreciate your viewpoint but I must disagree for much the same reasons. You see, music goes everywhere with me which means it's in my car and on my portable. No hardware will ever support mpc but MP3 is ubiquitous now and ogg is garnering increased support with every passing day.

Therein lies my logic of not choosing a format with no future - that future is predicated on hardware vendor support so that the music can be enjoyed everywhere.

[brian]

roj - this isn't a disagreement, just a difference in where and how people like to listen to music. I listen to recorded music only at home, and keep myself entertained on the road by the sound of my own voice (I've always fancied myself as a cross between Willie Nelson and Little Richard).

[chicubs]

Ogg Is Winning!!!!

[Roj]

roj - this isn't a disagreement, just a difference in where and how people like to listen to music. I listen to recorded music only at home, and keep myself entertained on the road by the sound of my own voice (I've always fancied myself as a cross between Willie Nelson and Little Richard).
Hey, I never said it was a disagreement (as in argument), only that I disagreed with your viewpoint. :)

As to your singing prwoess, here's fervently hoping that yours is better than mine! :D

[Lich]

Yeah, finally my iMP-250 can play Ogg files!

[Mootang]

Yeah, finally my iMP-250 can play Ogg files!Yeah!

Which means my iMP-350 will too, thx for the update Lich! I almost forgot about the .ogg update. I love iriver products, best investment I ever made.

[-swt-]

MP3 for me :cool:

[hedge]

MP3 for me :cool:
yeah, mp3 for me too, mainly because thats what my ipod handles... and lame is half decent anyway.

[Rex_Mundi_Incarnit]

I use mp3 because it encodes the fastest on my slomo 550mhz computer

[sld]

mpc user here. Most of my listening is done on my computer, and I transcode to LAME 128 ABR kbps mp3s for portable use.
Will be adopting aac for use once FAAC's encoding quality at least matches that of mpc's for the same file size or smaller.
Development on aac is currently noticeably faster than on vorbis now, though I'll transcode to the latter for use on my iRiver portable the moment the darned firmware is released.

[madman2003]

MPC here too. Don't have portables, so that isn't a problem. I encode everything at --quality 7 --xlevel, which gives me very good quality.

If i had the hd space, i'd go lossless, but atm thats a bit too big.

@sld: transcoding lossy files will lead to loss of quality.

[Roj]

"@sld: transcoding lossy files will lead to loss of quality."

I just wasn't gonna mention that, but now that you have.... :) :) :)

[rorythedog]

"@sld: transcoding lossy files will lead to loss of quality."

I just wasn't gonna mention that, but now that you have.... :) :) :)


Funny that this thread should get updated at this time. All my CD's (around 600+) were originally encoded in .wma format. This was because I was a newbie a year ago and, not knowing any better, I just let WiMP handle it.

Recently I had a HD fail on me . Lost all my CD's. However every cloud has a silver lining and I now find that I can afford to upgrade the car stereo.

Trouble is, it seems car stereos only support either .mp3's or .wma's. What's the best option of these?

Also, I've decided to use CDeX for the encoding (as it's free). Is this the best choice? I know this isn't strictly a QCD question but I respect the opinions of you guys.

Also, as a further aside, it's worth remembering that the source code is the most crucial area in regard to sound quality. All further processing can only detract from the sound of the original. This may make the track sound better to any given listener, but it is not an accurate copy. i.e. I use a couple of plug-ins now & again, but only ever when replaying downloaded tracks. I don't feel I need them when playing back copies of CD's (if the copy is done well). Which brings me back to the top of the page. Rant over.

Thanks in advance for any help guys.

[Roj]

Trouble is, it seems car stereos only support either .mp3's or .wma's. What's the best option of these?
MP3 - no question, if sound quality is an issue. I do 192CBR using LAME 3.92 (do avoid later versions - they are essentially speeded up crap and that includes today's release of 3.96).

Also, I've decided to use CDeX for the encoding (as it's free). Is this the best choice? I know this isn't strictly a QCD question but I respect the opinions of you guys.
Great choice. Easy to configure, easy to use and serves up rips on par with those produced by AudioGrabber and EAC. Also, it comes with all the necessary lossy and lossless codecs included. I use it myself.

Also, as a further aside, it's worth remembering that the source code is the most crucial area in regard to sound quality. All further processing can only detract from the sound of the original. This may make the track sound better to any given listener, but it is not an accurate copy. i.e. I use a couple of plug-ins now & again, but only ever when replaying downloaded tracks. I don't feel I need them when playing back copies of CD's (if the copy is done well). Which brings me back to the top of the page.
As you may have read, no DSPs here, no sound coloring crap needed or wanted. :)

[traveller]

Also, I've decided to use CDeX for the encoding (as it's free). Is this the best choice? I know this isn't strictly a QCD question but I respect the opinions of you guys.

CDex is an excellent choice. In addition to being very easy to use, it has the endearing ability to ignore every type of copy protection I've yet encountered. ;)

[Roj]

CDex is an excellent choice. In addition to being very easy to use, it has the endearing ability to ignore every type of copy protection I've yet encountered. ;)
I might add that the capability you so prize (as I do :) ) has a lot to do with your choice of hardware. For example, if you are unfortunate enough to own a Plextor or Pioneer drive, you'll find that they have an unerring tendency to adhere to copy protection - ample proof that their creators have sold out to the majors in terms of how they build their firmware. LG and Lite-On on the other hand have a marked tendency to ignore such dreck... :)

[traveller]

LG and Lite-On on the other hand have a marked tendency to ignore such dreck... :)
That would explain it. I have an LG drive :apple:

[Quad341]

Ogg for me. Why?
OPEN SOURCE
FREE
OPEN SOURCE
um...
Ah yes, the official format of The Kahvi Collective (http://kahvi.org/).
Free and clean enough for my uses.

[MrZebra]

I might add that the capability you so prize (as I do :) ) has a lot to do with your choice of hardware. For example, if you are unfortunate enough to own a Plextor or Pioneer drive, you'll find that they have an unerring tendency to adhere to copy protection - ample proof that their creators have sold out to the majors in terms of how they build their firmware. LG and Lite-On on the other hand have a marked tendency to ignore such dreck... :)

Humm, I have a Lite-On CD Burner and the 2 DDCDs (Deliberately Defective CDs) I have I was able to copy them using a program called ISO Buster. And also, recent versions of QCD seem to work too (Sometimes, the first track wouldn't rip so I have to use ISOBuster for that one) but anyway, you mean that if I had say a Panasonic or Sony drive even ISOBuster would fail? That's good to know...

I remember hearing at one point that Philips wanted to make a CD Drive that would ignore copy protection because being one of the inventors of the CD format, they hated the fact "Their" format was violated and stuff... The RIAA told them that if they'd ever release such a drive, they'd use the DMCA to sue them to death!

[DanTheManPR]

Depends what I'm using them for

ogg is really the ideal format for portable players. Great quality in a small package. When players with ogg support start getting popular, I will snap them right up.

However, on my hard drive (where size isn't really an issue), I avoid oggs because although they sound good, the just don't sound as good as a 160kb mpc or 192kb mp3. If only mpc was a more ubiquitous format - it is the best sounding off the lossy formats. But I suppose it will be a dead format in a few years - which is why I stick with 192kb mp3s (whenever I can).

I don't use mp3 pro, for now, and neither AAC. They both sound good, but mp3 is more popular.

[Roj]

However, on my hard drive (where size isn't really an issue), I avoid oggs because although they sound good, the just don't sound as good as a 160kb mpc or 192kb mp3. If only mpc was a more ubiquitous format - it is the best sounding off the lossy formats. But I suppose it will be a dead format in a few years - which is why I stick with 192kb mp3s (whenever I can).
Some more up-to-date information:

1) mpc has been dethroned by ogg in the audio quality department - check the latest threads about codecs here

2) mpc is dead NOW - the author threw in the towel a while back

[DanTheManPR]

Some more up-to-date information:

1) mpc has been dethroned by ogg in the audio quality department - check the latest threads about codecs here

2) mpc is dead NOW - the author threw in the towel a while back

Good to know. I don't use MPC's cause I'm worried that in five years I will have a big music collection that I can't use :ermm: What bitrate should I encode ogg's at?

[Roj]

Good to know. I don't use MPC's cause I'm worried that in five years I will have a big music collection that I can't use :ermm: What bitrate should I encode ogg's at?
I used to use Q8. Then I realized that Q6 sounded markedly clearer than MP3 at 192 / Stereo / HQ and took up less space.

[Tokelil]

I use Q5.9 since thats the highest quality that still has joint stereo as far as I know.

[sld]

MPC here too. Don't have portables, so that isn't a problem. I encode everything at --quality 7 --xlevel, which gives me very good quality.

If i had the hd space, i'd go lossless, but atm thats a bit too big.

@sld: transcoding lossy files will lead to loss of quality.

Portable use only. My mpc files will be on my HD for a long time. I have a small CD collection anyway (like, less than 15), so re-ripping won't be such a pain.

[carbonize]

OGG has the best sound quality but due to a total lack of hardware support, Sonicstage doesn't support it and I have yet to see a portable MP3 player that does, I think I'll stick with MP3's at 128k.

I choose CBR at 128k as it's prety much the standard I have always used. I feel it offers a good compromise between file size and quality. I did just fall into the trap of believing that WMA was superior to MP3 but I have now realised that at 128k this is false. WMA is better than MP3 at low bitrates but from 128k and up MP3 is better (according to all the tests I have read). OGG wins all these tests though. Why hardware manufacturers don't support OGG I don't know. Unless it was down to it being in constant development.

[Qaz]

OGG has the best sound quality but due to a total lack of hardware support, Sonicstage doesn't support it and I have yet to see a portable MP3 player that does, I think I'll stick with MP3's at 128k.
Lately the situation on this area has improved, I think.

[Roj]

OGG has the best sound quality but due to a total lack of hardware support, Sonicstage doesn't support it and I have yet to see a portable MP3 player that does, I think I'll stick with MP3's at 128k.Then you're not looking hard enough.

iRiver has several flash and at least one hard drive model that supports OGG. Creative Labs also has a hard disk-based model that supports OGG. Finally, the Neuros also has OGG support.

Total lack indeed...

[matty28carter]

theres also some of the rio players. however i wouldn't touch anything by rio... cheap rubbish.

[Psy]

Then you're not looking hard enough.
The problem of OGG Vorbis in this matter was the lack of a final paper for the standard, long time in beta state, and no hardware manofacturer will risk to implement something that tomorrow can change. When OGG finally get a decent paper to send to the devs, Microsoft was pushing hard with it's wma.

[Roj]

The problem of OGG Vorbis in this matter was the lack of a final paper for the standard, long time in beta state, and no hardware manofacturer will risk to implement something that tomorrow can change. When OGG finally get a decent paper to send to the devs, Microsoft was pushing hard with it's wma.But have you been reading the thread? There are now high profile manufacturers supporting OGG, specifically Creative Labs and iRiver.

As to MS and wma, the less said about that junk the better.

YMMV.

[carbonize]

Yes OGG is slowly getting hardware support but only in expensive equpment. OGG will start to spread faster once the manufacturers of the cheap end MP3 players start to implement it. I can buy a USB stick MP3 player with 512Mb that supports WMA and MP3 for only £45 with shipping. The cheapest MP3 player with OGG support is the i-River 512meg stick and that costs £150. Once the Chinese manufacturers that make the cheap end players start adding OGG support then more people will support it.

I just wish that Sony would add OGG support to SonicStage or change minidiscs from using Atrac3 to using OGG :biggrin:

[Psy]

But have you been reading the thread? There are now high profile manufacturers supporting OGG, specifically Creative Labs and iRiver.

Err, I think I forgot to explain my point. I no meant to say there are no support, but that the actual one is a bit behind the rest of the formats because the lack for a proper paper for a long time.

[Roj]

Yes OGG is slowly getting hardware support but only in expensive equpment. OGG will start to spread faster once the manufacturers of the cheap end MP3 players start to implement it. I can buy a USB stick MP3 player with 512Mb that supports WMA and MP3 for only £45 with shipping. The cheapest MP3 player with OGG support is the i-River 512meg stick and that costs £150. Once the Chinese manufacturers that make the cheap end players start adding OGG support then more people will support it.
Agreed.

As to Sony supporting OGG, yer kidding, right? Look how long it took them to get off their asses and support MP3. "Oh God, it'll hurt our music business!"

[Roj]

Err, I think I forgot to explain my point. I no meant to say there are no support, but that the actual one is a bit behind the rest of the formats because the lack for a proper paper for a long time.
Actually, apart from wma, the only other format that I'm aware of being supported is AAC. Apple will of course champion that with their iPod and that alone will constitute a HUGE chunk of purchases. And yes, I do remember the age and a half it took for the firmware to become available for ogg because of power consumption problems on down.

[carbonize]

I haven't got a clue on this but maybe the reason for lack of ogg support in hardware to date is partly down the the codec size. As I said I aint got a clue but I believe that the OGG codec is larger than both the WMA and MP3 codecs.

[Roj]

I haven't got a clue on this but maybe the reason for lack of ogg support in hardware to date is partly down the the codec size. As I said I aint got a clue but I believe that the OGG codec is larger than both the WMA and MP3 codecs.
You've definitely got a clue - that was indeed part of the problem. In fact, the older iRiver products couldn't support OGG because their firmware flash capacity was too small. The other problem was the power consumption. Both problems have aparrently been solved by hardware evolution.

[carbonize]

The larger codec I can understand as OGG uses a larger "songbook", or whatever the term is, than both WMA and MP3 hence the better quality. But why the higher power consumption? Is this to do with OGG using more channels(?) than the others?

[Roj]

The larger codec I can understand as OGG uses a larger "songbook", or whatever the term is, than both WMA and MP3 hence the better quality. But why the higher power consumption? Is this to do with OGG using more channels(?) than the others?
No idea. I just remember iRiver listing that as one of the issues way back when.