• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required as is 20 years of participation in forums (not all true). Come here to have fun, be ready to be teased and not take online life too seriously. We now measure and review equipment for free! Click here for details.

What lossy codec do you use

charleski

New Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2019
Messages
1
Likes
0
#42
Only have 64GB + 16gb on my Sony AW45. I just use Lame at V2 since it does better on some samples than QAAC does?.
Interesting. I used to use Lame -V2 but switched to qaac tvbr mode (q 90 or 100) some years ago after reading the shootouts on hydrogenaudio (though these only really showed a difference at lower bit rates). I switched from mp3 largely so I wouldn’t have to worry about the sfb21 problem (though this is probably not an issue with my aging ears). Do you have a link that talks about the problems with qaac?

I can fit my collection into a 256Gib sd card. FLAC would be at least 4 times the size, which is outside my budget.

One minor annoyance is the need to dither any high-res files I get before conversion, as the qaac encoder just seems to truncate at 16bits. I did some tests a few years ago and found that simple TPDF seemed to work best without any noise-shaping.
 
Joined
Dec 4, 2019
Messages
37
Likes
19
#43
Interesting. I used to use Lame -V2 but switched to qaac tvbr mode (q 90 or 100) some years ago after reading the shootouts on hydrogenaudio (though these only really showed a difference at lower bit rates). I switched from mp3 largely so I wouldn’t have to worry about the sfb21 problem (though this is probably not an issue with my aging ears). Do you have a link that talks about the problems with qaac?
AAC with QAAC/FHG sound way better than Lame <192kb/s. There are samples with MP3 were the bit rate can shoot to 235 - 320kb/s or gives up sounding tranparent, which is why i moved to AAC. Opus is better but there little support for that and AAC is near MP3 level when it comes to support. lol

There really no point on MP3 unless your stuck with a old DAP that only supports MP3 only.
 

digitalfrost

Active Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 22, 2018
Messages
298
Likes
363
Location
Palatinate, Germany
#45
AAC with QAAC/FHG sound way better than Lame <192kb/s. There are samples with MP3 were the bit rate can shoot to 235 - 320kb/s or gives up sounding tranparent, which is why i moved to AAC. Opus is better but there little support for that and AAC is near MP3 level when it comes to support. lol

There really no point on MP3 unless your stuck with a old DAP that only supports MP3 only.
MP3 has been shown to be transparent at 128kbps 15 years ago.

https://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=Hydrogenaudio_Listening_Tests
 
Joined
Dec 4, 2019
Messages
37
Likes
19
#46

L5730

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2018
Messages
311
Likes
154
Location
East of England
#47
Phone (old non-smart):
MP3, 128-192kbps CBR LAME. The internal processing and shoddy hardware don't demonstrate any benefit to any higher quality. Plus it's limited to 99 songs and 1GiB of space.

General unknown device:
CDs, plain old CD-Rs burnt as CD-DA. Works in most cars.
MP3 192kbps CBR LAME on FAT formatted smaller USB stick. Compatibility.

Community Radio station:
MP3 192kbps CBR LAME. Size, speed to process and it simply works. It's going through further analogue processing and has to be compatible with cross platform (rules out VBR generally).

CD Player (USB):
WMA v9 CBR 320kpbs. The device doesn't support lossless or even LPCM .WAV. MP3 sounds clearly sub-par, as does WMA VBR, but less so.

PC playback to USB DAC:
FLAC lossless L8 and DSD .ISOs. No need to use lossy when HDD are cheap enough to have multiple redundant backups. Even a 1TB drive stores a huge amount of music untouched and unmolested from it's original form, be it CD, HD download, SACD, DSD download, DVD-A or whatever else.

Anything I've had to save from youtube*:
Whatever format it was in (AAC? Ogg-Vorbis?). Some stuff just simply wasn't released and youtube is the only place it exists. I am not relying on a stable internet connection and no one goosing that data. I'll take a copy offline thanks.
 
Joined
Dec 26, 2019
Messages
24
Likes
12
#48
Yeah there samples were both AAC/MP3 are fine at 128kbps. People forget than AAC/Vorbis can trip on differnt samples, i tried the demo samples on those tests. I get a laugh at how better V5 Lame sounds over 96kb/s Vorbis on metal, classical and mild electro. Vorbis has stereo issues, QAAC sound mostly better and V5 lame sounds fine.
 

bravomail

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2018
Messages
449
Likes
171
#49
Yeah there samples were both AAC/MP3 are fine at 128kbps. People forget than AAC/Vorbis can trip on differnt samples, i tried the demo samples on those tests. I get a laugh at how better V5 Lame sounds over 96kb/s Vorbis on metal, classical and mild electro. Vorbis has stereo issues, QAAC sound mostly better and V5 lame sounds fine.
AAC it is then!
 
Joined
Feb 7, 2020
Messages
19
Likes
9
#50
I use Vorbis at Q4(160Kbps) since it sounds better than Lame MP3 and better than QAAC on more demanding samples/content, By upping those ones to Q9+ of course.

Oddly those same samples/songs still sound wrong even at 320kbps with QAAC/Lame?.
 
Top Bottom