HomeForumsWhat's newResources 
 
 
Music Compression and Quality
IceDigger - Jan 30, 2005

 1  2  3  4  Next> 

  IceDigger Jan 30, 2005
As of date what do you guys think the best quality to compression format is for compressing music?

I am looking for a standard format for all of the music that is to be encoded for the future of this site.

I am not an audiophile so I can't tell much of a difference between the formats but some of you can. So if you can provide us info on why a certain format is best please do so.

 tsumake Jan 30, 2005
Well, I've heard of a compression format known as FLAC, which is supposed to sound just as good as a wav file but still compressed. Here is the link:

http://flac.sourceforge.net/...

It looks intriguing.

 racketboy Jan 30, 2005
Flac is good for lossless -- its kinda the standard for lossless.

Personally I use Monkey Audio for my own stuff though.

But with lossless, it's gonna take a lot of bandwidth and it will take longer to download.

For best quality/compatibility, it would go with 192kbps MP3.

I know people will argue that OGG and other format are better, but for public archives, MP3 is the way to go

 Borisz Jan 30, 2005
for best compatibility/quality/size ratio (~200k):

LAME 3.90.3 --alt-preset standard

for best quality at lower bitrates (~130k)

Ogg Vorbis aoTuV -q 4.5

OR

Musepack --quality 4 --xlevel

for best quality at higher bitrates (~200k)

Musepack --quality 7 --xlevel

Public listening tests:

http://www.rjamorim.com/test/...

Musepack doesn't have support everywhere, unfortunetaly, it is a very nice codec and probably offers the highest quality out there. It just beats the shit out of everything else starting from around ~150k and up. Although at lower bitrates Ogg is better by a little.

Ogg is only good for bitrates around 130k, after that it starts to tie with MP3, at around ~200k MP3 is actually better then Ogg.

MP3 is supported pretty much everywhere, but it's a very old and bulky format. If anything, DO NOT use CBR, only at 320k. Musepack actually sounds about as good as a 320k cbr mp3 at much lower bitrates (around ~240k).

It should also be noted that with Musepack at quality 10 it is virtually impossible to tell any differences between the encoded and original streams, even for spectral analyzers. If you don't mind the ~300k bitrates, use that one - its so high quality that its even safe to transencode it (to some extent).

You can also check hydrogenaudio.org for more info.

 FunkyPoopMonkey Jan 30, 2005
Use ogg if you are wanting lower bitrate files (below 128kbps). Use mpc (not mp3) if you are wanting higher bitrate files (192 and higher). Simple as that. Personally, I would go with ogg because most of the source material is synthesized music, which compresses extremely well. And winamp plays ogg by default, so no one has any excuses not to be able to play it.

Read up on it here: http://www.gamingforce.com/forums/showthread.php?t...

Plus Iceman, I emailed you, offering you a lot of my quality Sega rips to replace some of your lower end versions already hosted on the site. Whats with the cold shoulder?

 IceDigger Jan 30, 2005
Probably because I havent checked my email in almost a month. I'll try and get to my emails this week.

 racketboy Jan 30, 2005
speaking of which, my sx email hasn't been working in a long time...

 ratfish Jan 30, 2005
:agree

I too would go with Ogg Vorbis compression.

IMO it's as good as if not better than MP3's method of compression.

Plus, it's the sound file format of choice for the DC homebrew classic, Feet of Fury.

 IceDigger Jan 30, 2005
Racketboy, did you pm dibz about it? When we had that server outage the emails got messed up and you needed to contact dibz.

 IceDigger Jan 30, 2005
What do you guys think of AAC?

 Borisz Jan 30, 2005

  
	
	

		
		

			Originally posted by ratfish@Sun, 2005-01-30 @ 04:18 PM



I too would go with Ogg Vorbis compression.



IMO it's as good as if not better than MP3's method of compression.




[post=128662]Quoted post[/post]


depending on bitrate. even though the aoTuV vorbis encoder is slightly better then others at 128k, as the bitrate goes higher it loses its edge to Musepack, and later on, to Lame as well.


  
	
	

		
		

			What do you guys think of AAC?


I haven't used it much, quality-wise its pretty good, but its still under heavy developement. Meaning that the stuff we encode now will be something like mp3 @ Blade 128k after a few years, IF the format survives at all. Seeing how many formats are out there, I'm not sure if it has every chance to do so. Although it's being backed up by most companies, and it is the successor of Mp3 in every aspect.

If you want to satisfy everyone, just use Lame alt-preset standard. There's no discussion about that, really. You can get a lot higher quality with musepack, or lower sizes (not as good quality, but slightly better size/quality ratio) with ogg vorbis, but they are not THAT mainspread, and someone would surely bitch about it sooner or later.

 Slurrey Jan 30, 2005
Just use 192k MP3. I HATE downloading songs in other formats and having to convert them to mp3 to use in my portable mp3 player!

 Zero 9 Jan 30, 2005
Code: 
  
--alt-preset extreme
?

Please do NOT use 192k CBR MP3. Ew.

 Borisz Jan 30, 2005
Wouldn't AP Extreme files be too big for the server load?

 FunkyPoopMonkey Jan 31, 2005
Anyone who complains about ogg needs to just grow up and get winamp. It comes with the ogg codec, and its still the best music player on the planet, and will probably never be beaten. OGG beats MP3 in all aspects by a clear margin according to tests. And encoding any audio to a CBR format is insanity in this day and age.

But for those who absolutely insist on mp3, then yes, alt preset standard is the path to take. Extreme is only for the most severely anal.

Plus to the one guy who wants mp3 for his portable player, are you sure your player doesnt accept ogg? If it truely doesn't, then check the official site for a firmware update which includes ogg support. It's becoming a standard now, as is WMA (which I hate, but thats another story).

 SkankinMonkey Jan 31, 2005
From what I read Ogg requires higher CPU power so thats a reason why many players don't support it. Though I do agree it is much higher quality, and is what I rip most of my CD's with.

But otherwise 192 VBR mp3 is fine for most stuff

 Zero 9 Jan 31, 2005
I don't really think bandwidth is a problem these days is it?

 FunkyPoopMonkey Jan 31, 2005

  
	
	

		
		

			Originally posted by SkankinMonkey@Sun, 2005-01-30 @ 07:37 PM



From what I read Ogg requires higher CPU power so thats a reason why many players don't support it. Though I do agree it is much higher quality, and is what I rip most of my CD's with.



But otherwise 192 VBR mp3 is fine for most stuff




[post=128674]Quoted post[/post]


Nah not by a lot. I've seen a lot of simple emails work, in convincing a company to add ogg support to their device. I went with iRiver I believe it was, back when I had my player. Loved it, but found out that I really didn't have much use for portable music.

 SkankinMonkey Jan 31, 2005

  
	
	

		
		

			Originally posted by FunkyPoopMonkey@Sun, 2005-01-30 @ 08:57 PM



Nah not by a lot. I've seen a lot of simple emails work, in convincing a company to add ogg support to their device. I went with iRiver I believe it was, back when I had my player. Loved it, but found out that I really didn't have much use for portable music.




[post=128676]Quoted post[/post]


Their Ogg beta drivers don't work with my flash player

That makes me very sad

 VertigoXX Jan 31, 2005
I say go with the standard, MP3.

Yeah, bandwidth is still an issue here.

 1  2  3  4  Next>