Best audio codec?

[Gary Sheynkman]

I will now be hailed Gary...the king of polls!

FLAC and Ogg are great, but are not integrated very well. I find that i dont like the AAC encoding that apple uses at all (poor middle range...like bose speakers :lol: ) MP3 VBR is nice....but cant we move on? Windows media Im not a big fan of and dont get me started on Real (the legal virus). Atrac....please for the love of God...have some self respect

[Janak Parekh]

I've got to disagree with you on several points. 8O

FLAC and Ogg are great, but are not integrated very well.
Define "integrated". First off, be precise: Ogg Vorbis is lossy, while (Ogg) FLAC is not. FLAC is not widely supported, but that's because it's not mass-market. Ogg Vorbis, on the other hand, is -- a number of hard-drive based players, along with Winamp and a bunch of software, support it perfectly.

I find that i dont like the AAC encoding that apple uses at all (poor middle range...like bose speakers :lol: )
I'm assuming this is subjective. You might want to read some of the discussions at Hydrogen Audio; AAC has consistently gotten decent ratings.

MP3 VBR is nice....but cant we move on?
Sure -- why not AAC or Ogg, or even WMA? If you think they're all inferior, feel free to start one. It's not trivial, and by information theoretic properties you're always going to lose something with a lossy codec.

Windows media Im not a big fan of
Meaning...?

dont get me started on Real (the legal virus).
For once, we agree. :)

Atrac....please for the love of God...have some self respect
ATRAC was pretty darn ahead of its time, although it is getting in on age.

So, may I ask, what do you do? Use WAV?

--janak

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

MP3 for me! Maximum compatibility, quality is good enough for me. I find most of those who whine about MP3s not being good enough tend to be under the placebo effect; in a blind test they can't tell them apart.

[Russell]

MP3 for me! Maximum compatibility, quality is good enough for me. I find most of those who whine about MP3s not being good enough tend to be under the placebo effect; in a blind test they can't tell them apart.

I must agree. I am more into using formats that are widely accepted across hardware platforms as opposed to those that have some minor cult following trying to overthrow the machine.

[Janak Parekh]

I find most of those who whine about MP3s not being good enough tend to be under the placebo effect; in a blind test they can't tell them apart.
Hmm. I can certainly tell 128kbps MP3, VBR or not. Cymbals often sound wishy-washy. Other codecs are noticeably better at that. You're probably right, though, that at 160kbps VBR I would probably have a tough time.

--janak

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

Ah, I guess the music I listen to doesn't have a lot of cymbals (either that or I don't listen closely enough). But you do have a point about certain instruments or sequences tripping up a codec. Think there was a page on ATRAC's little hiccups; and I recall my MD recorder refusing to properly record a short sequence from one song properly. There'd be this really interesting sound artifact..

[Janak Parekh]

Ah, I guess the music I listen to doesn't have a lot of cymbals (either that or I don't listen closely enough).
Right -- if you listen to the high-frequency sounds closely, most lossy codecs trip up there first as you lower the bitrate. Cymbals, top-hats, etc. It "grates" on my ears. That's the biggest reason I can't go below 128kbps. They turn into generic "tinkly-thingies" which give me the shudders (at least, with MP3 and WMA).

--janak

[Gary Sheynkman]

wow.....killed by Janak...so much for being my hero :roll:

ok...i got my oppinion from AAC from the apple music store....maybe the bit rate is too low.

Ive recently got off the kazaa bug ( :oops: ) where i downloaded every song i ever heard in crappy mp3 bit rates. So i wiped my pc clean. I want to start to build a nice CD collection (i know where to get them cheap).

i didnt like Atrac because Sony had this crazy check in/out system for their players. :x

The rio carma supports FLAC...so once a model that has audio input (on the fly encoding like iriver) i will definatly purchase one

um.... wma... im just suspicious of the Empire!



Pretty much i want for people to understand that lossless codecs are out there and that we are loosing precious music to poor encodings. A family friend is crazy about old school hifi music. Reel-to-Reel...lp...all the good stuff...its amazing (i hate this guy...he has more toys than anyone i know)

janak....please.....dont hurt me like this :lol:

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

Mmm, indeed, anything less than 128kbps sounds quite terrible. There's this tiiiiny thing that goes on in the background that irks the hell out of me.

[Suhit Gupta]

janak....please.....dont hurt me like this :lol:
I think that since you diss'ed every single format listed above, it irked him :-D. Don't stress though...

Mmm, indeed, anything less than 128kbps sounds quite terrible. There's this tiiiiny thing that goes on in the background that irks the hell out of me.
I agree, especially in classical music. It almost sounds like a small scratchy/hissy noise, hard to discribe. Most of my music has been at 160kbps VBR, but I have gone up to 192 or 256 (just for kicks :)) when ripping my Trance CDs. Truthfully though, I cannot tell the difference when at 160 and above.

Suhit

[Janak Parekh]

ok...i got my oppinion from AAC from the apple music store....maybe the bit rate is too low.
Yes, this is one of my pet peeves of iTMS: I'd be much happier if it's 160kbps AAC, not 128kbps. For now, I'm only using it for singles, I'm still buying CDs otherwise and ripping them; those go into 160kbps AAC, which is overall very good. A few pieces show weird encoding side-effects, but not enough for me to care.

i didnt like Atrac because Sony had this crazy check in/out system for their players. :x
Good point! That's a lot more precise than your first argument.

The rio carma supports FLAC...so once a model that has audio input (on the fly encoding like iriver) i will definatly purchase one
Be careful. FLAC will lead to low battery lifetimes, because the devices won't be able to cache anywhere near as much information, so the hard drive will be accessed a lot more. All of these devices, including the iPod, accomplish their rated battery life by keeping the hard drive off as much as possible.

um.... wma... im just suspicious of the Empire!
I'd agree for online-purchased music, since you're tied into the DRM policies, which vary by vendor. However, for non-purchased music you can turn off the copyright bits, and I don't see that as a problem, unless you want 3rd-party OS support.

Why not Ogg Vorbis, though?

Pretty much i want for people to understand that lossless codecs are out there and that we are loosing precious music to poor encodings.
True, but decently-done lossy encodings can be very good, and you couldn't tell the difference in double-blind listening tests. Visit Hydrogen Audio (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/) for lots of technical discussion on this topic... but from what I've heard, even most people with very good ears can't tell the difference between 256kbps+ MP3 and CD-quality PCM audio.

A family friend is crazy about old school hifi music. Reel-to-Reel...lp...all the good stuff...its amazing (i hate this guy...he has more toys than anyone i know)
That's great, but two points: it depends on your target application... if you're obsessed with audio quality, make sure to get top-of-the-line speakers, sound card, etc., because all that matters; and it's possible to be overobsessed, which is yslee's point, I believe.

janak....please.....dont hurt me like this :lol:
Nah... I'm not trying to. Don't take it as criticism of you. :)

--janak

[Gary Sheynkman]

We agree on more thing than you think Janak.

1) You are right, on regular PC speaker it is nearly impossible to tell the difference between 256 bit encoding and a CD

2) Ogg Vobris is great when encoded well. Im just waiting for that *perfect* device

3) As hardware goes....having a better sound car and speakers is important. Thats why when I want to listen to good music....i use my dj headphones.

Sorry for not making it clear in my first post


Im going to buy a device when they combine ipod looks...iriver bat. life and on the fly encoding with audio-in....rio carma formats (flac).....and not make it 500 bucks

uh...thats about it

reel-to-reel 8) 8)

[Janak Parekh]

Im going to buy a device when they combine ipod looks...iriver bat. life and on the fly encoding with audio-in....rio carma formats (flac).....and not make it 500 bucks
You're going to have to wait a while for that. :| Apple will likely never support Ogg Vorbis or FLAC, and I believe they've patented their iPod's UI.

However, the Karma does seem appealing to me. I've never held one, but if I do, I'll post back. The iRiver iHP-140's remote is fantastic, but I wasn't blown away by the unit's UI -- in fact, I personally found it confusing.

--janak

[Suhit Gupta]

Im going to buy a device when they combine ipod looks...iriver bat. life and on the fly encoding with audio-in....rio carma formats (flac).....and not make it 500 bucks
While you are at it, wouldn't you also like something that makes your morning coffee, solves crime and expands into a supersonic jet? :lol: I agree with Janak that you will be waiting for a long time for this to happen. There has been discussion on PPCT for some time now about the perfect PocketPC, and one of the problems that some people have pointed out is that there will never really be a perfect pocketPC since our definition for the perfect device will constantly be changing. More and more new features are introduced by different companies all the time and it is hard to keep combining them all into one device. (Ok, the rant stop here... :)).

The iRiver iHP-140's remote is fantastic, but I wasn't blown away by the unit's UI -- in fact, I personally found it confusing.
Umm, that is because you played with the UI for all of about 3 minutes :|. I really feel that it is quite a nice UI, in fact very much like the iPod's UI (which of course I have only played for about 3 minutes or less). I agree that it is perhaps not AS intuitive as the iPod's at first glance, but withing the first 20 minutes of use, I was quite comfortable with it.

And yes, the remote is very nice. My only gripe with the remote - no retractable cord. I am sure the cord will come in very hand while jogging or something, but for daily use, it is annoying.

Suhit

[Janak Parekh]

Umm, that is because you played with the UI for all of about 3 minutes :|. I really feel that it is quite a nice UI, in fact very much like the iPod's UI (which of course I have only played for about 3 minutes or less).
I've gotta disagree there. I have 261 artists on my iPod. Scrolling through them without a scroll wheel of some kind, i.e., with a unit whose button you have to hold down, is going to never be as convenient. Plus, I found the "hold down button for several seconds" interface mechanism to pop up the settings to be frustrating. The iPod does that for a few things: backlight and playlists-on-the-go are the two most notable ones -- and I hate it there too. Fortunately 99% of everyday functionality is useable without that UI kludge.

I'm not saying it's unusable. In fact, it's quite useable, even based on my limited experience. But it's not an iPod.

And yes, the remote is very nice. My only gripe with the remote - no retractable cord. I am sure the cord will come in very hand while jogging or something, but for daily use, it is annoying.
No remotes I know of have a retractable cord. That would indeed be very nice.

--janak

[Jason Dunn]

Right -- if you listen to the high-frequency sounds closely, most lossy codecs trip up there first as you lower the bitrate. Cymbals, top-hats, etc. It "grates" on my ears. That's the biggest reason I can't go below 128kbps. They turn into generic "tinkly-thingies" which give me the shudders (at least, with MP3 and WMA).

Agreed 100% - cymbals get TRASHED by the psychoacoustical models used in MP3, WMA, and most codecs. I've tried to like 64 kbps WMA, really I have, but they just really suck - for my ears at least, and the music that I like. 128 kbps WMA sounds pretty good, but I try to encode everything up near 160 kbps or 192 kbps.

[Jason Dunn]

Hey, we're supposed to save controversial topics like this for when the site launches! Don't every use up all their great ideas NOW.... ;-)

[Suhit Gupta]

Hey, we're supposed to save controversial topics like this for when the site launches! Don't every use up all their great ideas NOW.... ;-)

Ok, so I guess I won't try and smack Janak down about his iRiver comments. :lol:

Suhit

[possmann]

Does anyone really notice any difference between WMA and MP3 - lets keep it as similar as possible - 128kps...

I listened hard and, for my ears, the WMA seems to me, better in overall sound qaulity than the MP3 at the same bit rate (128).

thoughts?

[Jason Dunn]

Does anyone really notice any difference between WMA and MP3 - lets keep it as similar as possible - 128kps...

Yes, absolutely - WMA is usually equivalent in audio quality to MP3 at one "notch" higher. ie: a 128 kbps WMA is roughly as good as a 160 kbps MP3, and a 64 kbps WMA is as good as a 96 kbps or even 128 kbps MP3. Of course, this varies based on the music you're listening to, the headphones/speakers you've using, your sound card...etc. There are a LOT of variables that come into play when it comes to comparing audio codeccs, which is why I get irked when people claim that one format is the end-all and be-all for EVERYONE, rather than just their needs.