* Poll : best audio codec *

[jimmyhaha]

Poll : best audio codec

 

[NuclearFusi0n]

FLAC in the hizzouse.

 

Monkey's Audio

EDIT: I should mention that I have an 80 GB drive devoted solely to music (mostly mp3s, but my full CDs are in MA). So space being a non-issue, lossless is best.

 

[fs5]

MA for lossless, OGG for best compression, MP3 for best compatibility.

 

[Broohaha]

i once had an AOL screename called "oogabooga" hence, oog it is!

 

[Shawn]

MP3 (VBR - Variable bit rate)

 

[fs5]

Originally posted by: Broohaha
i once had an AOL screename called "oogabooga" hence, oog it is!

but it's ogg

 

[Ameesh]

wma9 lossless

 

[xcript]

Originally posted by: fivespeed5

Originally posted by: Broohaha
i once had an AOL screename called "oogabooga" hence, oog it is!

but it's ogg

Sshh, don't spoil it for him.

 

[ElFenix]

eac + lossless

 

[Dragon365]

VBR mp3, nice and compatible.

 

[pray4mojo]

What's the difference between CBR AND VBR?

 

[OrganizedChaos]

Originally posted by: NuclearFusi0n
FLAC in the hizzouse.

YAY someone else that understands that even mp3s encoded at 320 still suck! i'm not alone.

 

[BG4533]

Originally posted by: OrganizedChaos

Originally posted by: NuclearFusi0n
FLAC in the hizzouse.

YAY someone else that understands that even mp3s encoded at 320 still suck! i'm not alone.

Could you please explain why they suck or point me to something that explains.

Thanks,
Brian

 

Originally posted by: BG4533

Originally posted by: OrganizedChaos

Originally posted by: NuclearFusi0n
FLAC in the hizzouse.

YAY someone else that understands that even mp3s encoded at 320 still suck! i'm not alone.

Could you please explain why they suck or point me to something that explains.

Thanks,
Brian

Okay...mp3 by its nature compresses sound files by taking out parts that your ears supposedly can't hear. The smaller the file (lower bitrate) the less quality. It sucks, because it's a 'lossy' format - once you go mp3, you can never go back or forward - the quality's already been diminished.

Lossless encoding simply 'squishes' the file by mashing it together, and your computer uses its processing power to decode it. Basically you're getting CD audio in its original form in a bit smaller of a file size than just .wav. The good thing about lossless audio is that you can convert to mp3 for portable devices, etc. or just to save space, and you still retain the original high quality sound file in lossless format, even though you have an mp3 of the song as well.

I like Monkey's Audio for a lossless encoding format because it has the lowest CPU utilization of any lossless format, allegedly.

 

[secretanchitman]

any kind of mp3 bit rate, variable or constant. doesn't really matter.

 

[fs5]

Originally posted by: jumpr

Originally posted by: BG4533

Originally posted by: OrganizedChaos

Originally posted by: NuclearFusi0n
FLAC in the hizzouse.

YAY someone else that understands that even mp3s encoded at 320 still suck! i'm not alone.

Could you please explain why they suck or point me to something that explains.

Thanks,
Brian

Okay...mp3 by its nature compresses sound files by taking out parts that your ears supposedly can't hear. The smaller the file (lower bitrate) the less quality. It sucks, because it's a 'lossy' format - once you go mp3, you can never go back or forward - the quality's already been diminished.

Lossless encoding simply 'squishes' the file by mashing it together, and your computer uses its processing power to decode it. Basically you're getting CD audio in its original form in a bit smaller of a file size than just .wav. The good thing about lossless audio is that you can convert to mp3 for portable devices, etc. or just to save space, and you still retain the original high quality sound file in lossless format, even though you have an mp3 of the song as well.

I like Monkey's Audio for a lossless encoding format because it has the lowest CPU utilization of any lossless format, allegedly.

yeah but IIRC MA only halves the file size, for portable devices you can't really use loseless and have a lot of songs.
Ideally you should rip all your albums in MA (or some other type of lossless) then convert to mp3/ogg/wma/etc as needed.

 

Originally posted by: fivespeed5

Originally posted by: jumpr

Originally posted by: BG4533

Originally posted by: OrganizedChaos

Originally posted by: NuclearFusi0n
FLAC in the hizzouse.

YAY someone else that understands that even mp3s encoded at 320 still suck! i'm not alone.

Could you please explain why they suck or point me to something that explains.

Thanks,
Brian

Okay...mp3 by its nature compresses sound files by taking out parts that your ears supposedly can't hear. The smaller the file (lower bitrate) the less quality. It sucks, because it's a 'lossy' format - once you go mp3, you can never go back or forward - the quality's already been diminished.

Lossless encoding simply 'squishes' the file by mashing it together, and your computer uses its processing power to decode it. Basically you're getting CD audio in its original form in a bit smaller of a file size than just .wav. The good thing about lossless audio is that you can convert to mp3 for portable devices, etc. or just to save space, and you still retain the original high quality sound file in lossless format, even though you have an mp3 of the song as well.

I like Monkey's Audio for a lossless encoding format because it has the lowest CPU utilization of any lossless format, allegedly.

yeah but IIRC MA only halves the file size, for portable devices you can't really use loseless and have a lot of songs.
Ideally you should rip all your albums in MA (or some other type of lossless) then convert to mp3/ogg/wma/etc as needed.

Right...that's what I do. Rip using EAC + MA, encode MA --> mp3 when I put music on my Axim.

 

[Broohaha]

Originally posted by: xcript

Originally posted by: fivespeed5

Originally posted by: Broohaha i once had an AOL screename called "oogabooga" hence, oog it is!

but it's ogg

Sshh, don't spoil it for him.

LMAO!!

dammit! it's ogg?? eh whatever, still applies.

 

[Sid59]

i refuse to take polll ..

mpc = lossy
ape = lossless

 

[NuclearFusi0n]

FLAC > Monkey's Audio
A. Linux support
B. GPLed
C. Lowest decoding CPU requirements of damn near all lossless codecs, iirc.
D. Hardware support

The few extra megs that Monkey's Audio will save me = useless because my primary OS is Gentoo Linux

 

[jimmyhaha]

wonder if a song is encoded in same bit rate (i.e. 128kbps) under different codec mentioned in the poll,

what will be the ascending order of file size ?

 

[Sid59]

Originally posted by: pray4mojo
What's the difference between CBR AND VBR?

CBR - Constant Bit Rate - it encodes all the music (silences and everything in 1 bitrate)
VBR - Variable Bit Rate - it gives different bit rates according to what it needs. silences are given a lower bit rate that something with high frequencies, etc.

 

[Koing]

192kbps is good.

I have a 5.1 Creative setup. The 5300 set I think. Not sure exactly.

It sounds good to me. I'll save space and I don't think I would really notice the sound if the bit rate was higher on my speaker setup. Maybe if I had more pricey speakers but this is only a pc setup and I'd rather spend money on something else!

Koing

 

[amnesiac]

--alt-preset standard

Best way to go for good filesizes with good quality.
I can't tell much difference between that and the source anyway.