What lossy codec do you use

[KozmoNaut]

The NAS element is still (!) something I need to pursue, as it is something friends @ other forums have been using for up to 4-5 years by now and yet I've sat on the fence, backing up lossless -- including damned large hi-rez FLAC data -- to an array of (I think I'm up to 12TB worth) hard drives and 3TB of "cloud" storage. Seems a single NAS would go far to (1) simplifying storage of and access to material and (2) provide "safekeeping" security associated with the - as I undertsand it - emergency backup system, i.e., "RAID". Even two NAS boxes would be less clutter than having a half dozen hard disc drives piled up. The cloud storage is, of course, sans "clutter", but for how long will it be around? Do I awaken one day to a world @ which Dropbox and/or Yandex Disc are just "gone" .... vanished, along w/ 4TB of my archived material?

I can highly recommend getting a NAS, especially if you need to access your media storage from multiple devices. Mine is an older device, but it has a decent DLNA server and supports both FTP, Windows file sharing (CIFS) and NFS for *nix machines. Everything on it is available to stream to any device on my LAN, it's very handy. BubbleUPNP on Android can stream to a Chromecast, and my HTPC has the disk mounted as a network drive. 1GBit ethernet is plenty fast for anything, no hitches at all.

I would recommend getting a 4+ disk unit and configuring it with multiple RAID-1s or as RAID-10 if you're using identical disks.

 

[exRanger]

I can highly recommend getting a NAS, especially if you need to access your media storage from multiple devices. Mine is an older device, but it has a decent DLNA server and supports both FTP, Windows file sharing (CIFS) and NFS for *nix machines. Everything on it is available to stream to any device on my LAN, it's very handy. BubbleUPNP on Android can stream to a Chromecast, and my HTPC has the disk mounted as a network drive. 1GBit ethernet is plenty fast for anything, no hitches at all.

I would recommend getting a 4+ disk unit and configuring it with multiple RAID-1s or as RAID-10 if you're using identical disks.

Many thanks for the reply, I appreciate this information.

 

[Blujackaal]

Wow that somebody is still using Musepack. I have a lot of files from the mid-2000s, but general lack of support made me move to MP3 once LAME got good enough.

MPC isn't phased by issues the other 3 have. /mnt at hydrogen audio found few albums that MP3 struggled even at 320kbps, Was surpised that MPC was tranparent at 170kbps on those pre echo heavy samples. With more challenging stuff MPC can up the bitrate to 1mbit, I have some tracks at >384kbps.

No idea why MP2/Musepack weren't pushed support wise since they still rival modern codecs for 160 ~ 224kbps area.

 

[Pio2001]

No idea why MP2/Musepack weren't pushed support wise since they still rival modern codecs for 160 ~ 224kbps area.

The reason was that Musepack might be subject to copyright issues, as many big companies were trying to copyright everything they could. I mean, including filling ridiculously abusive patents, such as the use of a for...next loop in order to browse through an audio file, for example.
In a discussion about the problem, it was estimated that the time needed in order to demonstrate that the code of Musepack was not breaking any patent was way too long (something like hiring specialists during one year).
Vorbis, on the other hand, had been developed from the beginning paying attention to this, so that no one could attack it for breaking an existing patent.
Since it was performing equally well as Musepack in double blind tests, it gained more popularity and became the preferred free lossy codec.

Meanwhile, AAC was spreading in many commercial softwares, while also performing very well. The duet for high quality lossy compression thus became Vorbis (free) and AAC (non-free).

Now, I've heard that Opus, the lossy codec used in Youtube, was achieving great results quality wise.

 

[ZolaIII]

The reason was that Musepack might be subject to copyright issues, as many big companies were trying to copyright everything they could. I mean, including filling ridiculously abusive patents, such as the use of a for...next loop in order to browse through an audio file, for example.
In a discussion about the problem, it was estimated that the time needed in order to demonstrate that the code of Musepack was not breaking any patent was way too long (something like hiring specialists during one year).
Vorbis, on the other hand, had been developed from the beginning paying attention to this, so that no one could attack it for breaking an existing patent.
Since it was performing equally well as Musepack in double blind tests, it gained more popularity and became the preferred free lossy codec.

Meanwhile, AAC was spreading in many commercial softwares, while also performing very well. The duet for high quality lossy compression thus became Vorbis (free) and AAC (non-free).

Now, I've heard that Opus, the lossy codec used in Youtube, was achieving great results quality wise.

On full band/higher bit rates the Opus actually uses the same codec as OGG with more advanced sample packing.

 

[Blujackaal]

Been using Vorbis at 144kbps lately. Nearly the same support as AAC, Any issue can be fixed by using Q9 = 320kbps, Dosen't seem to choke like Apple AAC at 144k with ambient. Always found it bit weird AAC sub forum on HA forums is full of ignored killer samples & Yet vorbis's is made to look as good as LAME V5?. The TOS#8 a farce there when they outright ignore my posted samples I did with 160 vs 320 Vorbis.

 

[valerianf]

DD+ as it is what the Amazon Fire stick 4K send to my AVR when I am listening Amazo music HD.
Sound quality is very good.

 

[Blujackaal]

Moved to Opus 1.3, 96 ~ 140kbps sounds better than AAC/Vorbis/Lame do at 256kbps. holy crap it weird having noise/dark ambient/electronic be transparent and HA's hard samples too at 96kbps.