Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: NEWBIE: Which codec to choose? (Read 13310 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

NEWBIE: Which codec to choose?

I am new to this forum and I have a working knowledge of lossy encoding.  In the past I have ripped everything to WMA 128 cbr.  With my new Sony 8gig a728 I am noticing problems with the sound that I did not notice before. 

    I am not sure if the problem is just associated with WMA 128 or if my collection has been degraded while moving files back and forth when re-formatting my computer.  I have always used Windows Media Player and I like the way it integrates with the Sony.

    So my question is should I re-rip using using one of the VBR  WMA choices on WMP or should I move to an EAC type of set-up (if only the file size/quality can stay similar to WMA).  I have read about how there is a learning curve associated with EAC and all of its add-on components, so Iam wondering if it is worth the change since I already like WMP.

All thoughts and comments appreciated.

NEWBIE: Which codec to choose?

Reply #1 –
You could rip to mp3 in WMP using 160..192k range . That is a more seemless experience as the files work everywhere , are still relatively small and you can still use WMP.

NEWBIE: Which codec to choose?

Reply #2 –
Just something to clear up: sound quality of digital audio files cannot degrade when moving them around.  I can take a -V 2 mp3 and copy it to my USB thumb drive, take it to a friend's computer, copy it to their external hard drive, then that friend can upload said file onto a server for other people to download it.  The sound quality will still be exactly the same as when I initially encoded it unless there were physical media problems with my thumb drive or their hard drive.  That would result in lost bits though which would produce bleeps, blips, bloops, or portions of silence in the track.

The way I see it, you have three options:
1.  Continue ripping with Windows Media Player just at a different setting.  I would personally stay away from WMA and go with mp3 though.  Still, you should download foobar2000 and run some ABX tests to determine which bitrate would be acceptable for you to rip to.

2.  Rip your CD's with EAC and Lame (I think you can also use EAC to encode to the WMA format but I haven't followed up on that in 4+ years).  A -V 5 Lame mp3 should be about the same file size as a 128kbps CBR WMA file.  However, I believe the Lame mp3 will have better sound quality.  I am only speaking from personal experience and from past listening tests conducted here on HA.

3.  Rip your CD's with dBpowerAMP which gives you the option to rip to either WMA or Lame mp3.  dBpowerAMP is often thought of as a more user friendly experience than EAC while giving you all (or most) of the options that EAC offers.  I personally think that dBpowerAMP is a lot easier to use and setup than EAC.  Then again, once you get EAC running, it is rather easy to use.

So I suggest going with one of those three options.  The main thing that I think you should do is to conduct a blind ABX test to determine which format and setting will be appropriate for your ears.  Make sure to use the same headphones that you plan on listening to music on your Sony device.  The difference that you are hearing could very well be the placebo affect or it could be real.  An ABX test would verify if the differences you are hearing are in fact real.  Please let us know if you need any assistance in setting up and conducting a blind ABX test.

NEWBIE: Which codec to choose?

Reply #3 –
Quote from: shadowking on
You could rip to mp3 in WMP using 160..192k range . That is a more seemless experience as the files work everywhere , are still relatively small and you can still use WMP.


Why wouldn't I use WMA if using WMP?  I have done listening tests on my new Sony and WMA sounded as good if not better than the Mp3 generated by WMP.  Which leads me to the question of whether the quality of Mp3 on WMP is as good as it gets.

NEWBIE: Which codec to choose?

Reply #4 –
Quote from: moodyda on
Quote from: shadowking on

You could rip to mp3 in WMP using 160..192k range . That is a more seemless experience as the files work everywhere , are still relatively small and you can still use WMP.


Why wouldn't I use WMA if using WMP?  I have done listening tests on my new Sony and WMA sounded as good if not better than the Mp3 generated by WMP.  Which leads me to the question of whether the quality of Mp3 on WMP is as good as it gets.


Its ok if you have a portable that does wma which you do. On a non WMP / Microsoft system expect problems.  Mp3 is easier to play everywhere.

I don't have much experience with WMP mp3 quality.

NEWBIE: Which codec to choose?

Reply #5 –
As Kornchild says, you've lost no quality whatsoever. It's a technical impossibility. Either a driver has failed to install properly or you're imagining it.

Cheers, Slipstreem. 

NEWBIE: Which codec to choose?

Reply #6 –
Quote from: kornchild2002 on
Just something to clear up: sound quality of digital audio files cannot degrade when moving them around.  I can take a -V 2 mp3 and copy it to my USB thumb drive, take it to a friend's computer, copy it to their external hard drive, then that friend can upload said file onto a server for other people to download it.  The sound quality will still be exactly the same as when I initially encoded it unless there were physical media problems with my thumb drive or their hard drive.  That would result in lost bits though which would produce bleeps, blips, bloops, or portions of silence in the track.

The way I see it, you have three options:
1.  Continue ripping with Windows Media Player just at a different setting.  I would personally stay away from WMA and go with mp3 though.  Still, you should download foobar2000 and run some ABX tests to determine which bitrate would be acceptable for you to rip to.

2.  Rip your CD's with EAC and Lame (I think you can also use EAC to encode to the WMA format but I haven't followed up on that in 4+ years).  A -V 5 Lame mp3 should be about the same file size as a 128kbps CBR WMA file.  However, I believe the Lame mp3 will have better sound quality.  I am only speaking from personal experience and from past listening tests conducted here on HA.

3.  Rip your CD's with dBpowerAMP which gives you the option to rip to either WMA or Lame mp3.  dBpowerAMP is often thought of as a more user friendly experience than EAC while giving you all (or most) of the options that EAC offers.  I personally think that dBpowerAMP is a lot easier to use and setup than EAC.  Then again, once you get EAC running, it is rather easy to use.

So I suggest going with one of those three options.  The main thing that I think you should do is to conduct a blind ABX test to determine which format and setting will be appropriate for your ears.  Make sure to use the same headphones that you plan on listening to music on your Sony device.  The difference that you are hearing could very well be the placebo affect or it could be real.  An ABX test would verify if the differences you are hearing are in fact real.  Please let us know if you need any assistance in setting up and conducting a blind ABX test.

Thanks for your suggestions.  I felt that moving the files would do no harm, but I never really looked into it.  I want to do this right and I want the album art, year and other info to display on my Sony (which by the way is by far the best sounding portable unit that I have ever used).  This is achieved through the use of WMP.  If I can only  accomplish this by using WMP, which the sony is mated with with in its software, what is the best settings to rip with.  I am running Vista with the latest version of WMP.

Quote from: Slipstreem on
As Kornchild says, you've lost no quality whatsoever. It's a technical impossibility. Either a driver has failed to install properly or you're imagining it.

Cheers, Slipstreem. 

It may have had issues from the previous rip.  Because when I re-rip the same albums they sound perfect; WMA vbr 135-215 which I think uses too much space.

NEWBIE: Which codec to choose?

Reply #7 –
The best setting to rip with is probably the one where you hear no perceivable difference between the original source material and the lossy encoded version.  Only you have the answer as only you have your ears. Try a Google search for "ABX test".

Cheers, Slipstreem. 

NEWBIE: Which codec to choose?

Reply #8 –
Any other ideas out there?

Moderation: Quote removed.

NEWBIE: Which codec to choose?

Reply #9 –
The standard choice would probably be Exact Audio Copy as a ripper and LAME 3.98 as the encoder.  Select the 192 VBR option and you are golden.

- Jason

Moderation: Please don't quote the entire previous post.  For those that don't know already, you can create a response by pressing either or at the bottom of the discussion.

NEWBIE: Which codec to choose?

Reply #10 –
Quote
With my new Sony 8gig a728 I am noticing problems with the sound that I did not notice before.
  ...on my Sony (which by the way is by far the best sounding portable unit that I have ever used)
Yeah, That can happen...  With better equipment, you can hear details that you can't hear on cheap equipment.  On a cheap player, you might not notice the difference between the original CD and a low-bitrate rip.  It's kind-of an audiophile* trap...  You want better sound, so you get better equipment...  Then you get more picky and you want even better equipment and better recordings... and you're trapped in a vicious cycle.... 

Quote
Because when I re-rip the same albums they sound perfect; WMA vbr 135-215 which I think uses too much space.
  This is the nature of lossy compression...  At lower bitrates, more data is thrown-away.  At some point, you can hear the quality loss
Quote
Higher bitrate = higher quality  =  bigger file size = lower compression.

Lower bitrate = lower quality  = smaller file size = higher compression.


Using a variable bitrate (VBR/ABR) will give you better sound for a given file size.  With variable bitrate, the encoder uses a higher bitrate where needed (complex sounds with lots of high frequency content), and a lower bitrate for "simpler" sounds.  Constant bitrate (CBR) "wastes" the same number of bits to encode silence as it does to encode the complex parts.

If the bitrate is high-enough, the compression will be "transparent".  That is, it will sound exactly like the original. This is true no matter which CODEC/format you choose.

At lower bitrates some formats are better than others.  But, I'm not an expert when it comes to comparing different compression schemes, so I can't personally recommend which format/bitrate to use for the "best sound" in the "smallest file".    (I just use MP3 at high bitrates, and then I don't have to worry about it.) 


* I use the "dirty word" audiophile with the traditional definition - A lover of good audio.

NEWBIE: Which codec to choose?

Reply #11 –
Quote from: JasonQ on
Select the 192 VBR option and you are golden.

There is no such option.  Will you guys stop with the nonsense already?

Discussion of the misconception has been split here:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=65160

EDIT: Well there is such an option in EAC (an ancient one "-v -b 192" - kinda like iTunes VBR) and on that note I stand corrected.

NEWBIE: Which codec to choose?

Reply #12 –
Is there a recommended vbr rate for WMA, and is it best ripped through WMP or are there other preferred rippers.

NEWBIE: Which codec to choose?

Reply #13 –
Quote from: kornchild2002 on
Just something to clear up: sound quality of digital audio files cannot degrade when moving them around.  I can take a -V 2 mp3 and copy it to my USB thumb drive, take it to a friend's computer, copy it to their external hard drive, then that friend can upload said file onto a server for other people to download it.  The sound quality will still be exactly the same as when I initially encoded it unless there were physical media problems with my thumb drive or their hard drive.  That would result in lost bits though which would produce bleeps, blips, bloops, or portions of silence in the track.

The way I see it, you have three options:
1.  Continue ripping with Windows Media Player just at a different setting.  I would personally stay away from WMA and go with mp3 though.  Still, you should download foobar2000 and run some ABX tests to determine which bitrate would be acceptable for you to rip to.

2.  Rip your CD's with EAC and Lame (I think you can also use EAC to encode to the WMA format but I haven't followed up on that in 4+ years).  A -V 5 Lame mp3 should be about the same file size as a 128kbps CBR WMA file.  However, I believe the Lame mp3 will have better sound quality.  I am only speaking from personal experience and from past listening tests conducted here on HA.

3.  Rip your CD's with dBpowerAMP which gives you the option to rip to either WMA or Lame mp3.  dBpowerAMP is often thought of as a more user friendly experience than EAC while giving you all (or most) of the options that EAC offers.  I personally think that dBpowerAMP is a lot easier to use and setup than EAC.  Then again, once you get EAC running, it is rather easy to use.

So I suggest going with one of those three options.  The main thing that I think you should do is to conduct a blind ABX test to determine which format and setting will be appropriate for your ears.  Make sure to use the same headphones that you plan on listening to music on your Sony device.  The difference that you are hearing could very well be the placebo affect or it could be real.  An ABX test would verify if the differences you are hearing are in fact real.  Please let us know if you need any assistance in setting up and conducting a blind ABX test.

Why is it that you say to avoid WMA; just curious.

NEWBIE: Which codec to choose?

Reply #14 –
Why WMA is bad
Read the entire thread and ignore the audiophile talk at the end of it.
 

NEWBIE: Which codec to choose?

Reply #15 –
Avoiding WMA helps you to stay independent and more flexible. With WMA you are basically bound to Windows whereas MP3 is available universally with lots of tools and helping programs for whatever need there is. As sound quality is definitely comparable (I think MP3 also has the edge here) I'd go for MP3 anytime.

NEWBIE: Which codec to choose?

Reply #16 –
 Do you know what?
Every one here can give you a lecture about quality evaluation, ABX tests and so.
Here is my opinion.
If you care about the sound quality using lossy encoding at the same time:
use an MPEG-4 encoder - for example neroAACenc, if you decide to use mp3 encoder, use FhG - not LAME,
use VBR mode of compression,
use the max quality factor or close to it,
use simple (Left/Right) stereo mode - not joint stereo.

If you decide to follow these, then:
a CD will be encoded @ around 390 - 400 kbps in m4a format or @around 290-300 kbps in mp3 format.
You can conclude about preserving the sound quality by yourself having in mind the 1412.2 kbps for a CD sound.

Anything else would be waste of quality or size.

Good luck.

NEWBIE: Which codec to choose?

Reply #17 –
Quote from: SpasV on
if you decide to use mp3 encoder, use FhG - not LAME,


I don't understand this suggestion or the call for monumentally high bit rates.  Why Fraunhoffer and why 390-400 kbps on AAC???  These comments don't make sense without a further explanation.  And why the issue with joint stereo?

- Jason

NEWBIE: Which codec to choose?

Reply #18 –
SpasV is full of sh*t, don't listen to him. 400 kbps with m4a is total overkill and so is mp3 @ 300 kbps. The suggestion to use FhG instead of LAME is rubbish (not that you would hear any difference at that bitrate) and so is the non-joint stereo thing.
//From the barren lands of the Northsmen

NEWBIE: Which codec to choose?

Reply #19 –
Quote from: moodyda on
I am new to this forum and I have a working knowledge of lossy encoding.  In the past I have ripped everything to WMA 128 cbr.  With my new Sony 8gig a728 I am noticing problems with the sound that I did not notice before. 

    I am not sure if the problem is just associated with WMA 128 or if my collection has been degraded while moving files back and forth when re-formatting my computer.  I have always used Windows Media Player and I like the way it integrates with the Sony.

    So my question is should I re-rip using using one of the VBR  WMA choices on WMP or should I move to an EAC type of set-up (if only the file size/quality can stay similar to WMA).  I have read about how there is a learning curve associated with EAC and all of its add-on components, so Iam wondering if it is worth the change since I already like WMP.

All thoughts and comments appreciated.


As others have mentioned, better equipment will make any flaws more obvious.  Also, as you listen to your files, your ears become trained to what it sounds like.  If you go back to your original source, you may notice some differences.  That's when you are in trouble :-).  It sounds like you are starting to fall victim to this.  It certainly happened to me with my 105kbps ATRAC files and is now starting to me with my 192 VBR mp3 files.

Personally I use LAME mp3 because of the portability and gapless support (I use a iPod and a Squeezebox to play my files - both support the the LAME gapless tags).  I encode with a 192 VBR bitrate.  To my ears on my equipment, it has always been transparent to me.  This has been for the past 2 years.  I am now starting to notice small artifacts in my music here and there that I wasn't aware of before.  Ugh.  In my car and at work, which is where my iPod is used, it isn't an issue.  But on my better quality home stereo with my Squeezebox, I am starting to notice the difference.  For this reason, I am considering buying some 1TB drives and upgrading to FLAC for the squeeezebox.  But the mp3s will continue to be good enough for my iPod.

Regarding what tools to use, it is a matter of personal preference.  EAC and dbPowerAmp can ensure that you get good rips and let you know when a rip goes bad.  WMP can give you good rips, but you won't know when they go bad.  Which tool you use depends on how particular you are about guaranteeing good rips of your CDs.

Ultimately, you have to go with what sounds best to your ears and what you are most comfortable with.

NEWBIE: Which codec to choose?

Reply #20 –
Quote from: maggior on
Quote from: moodyda on

I am new to this forum and I have a working knowledge of lossy encoding.  In the past I have ripped everything to WMA 128 cbr.  With my new Sony 8gig a728 I am noticing problems with the sound that I did not notice before. 

    I am not sure if the problem is just associated with WMA 128 or if my collection has been degraded while moving files back and forth when re-formatting my computer.  I have always used Windows Media Player and I like the way it integrates with the Sony.

    So my question is should I re-rip using using one of the VBR  WMA choices on WMP or should I move to an EAC type of set-up (if only the file size/quality can stay similar to WMA).  I have read about how there is a learning curve associated with EAC and all of its add-on components, so Iam wondering if it is worth the change since I already like WMP.

All thoughts and comments appreciated.


As others have mentioned, better equipment will make any flaws more obvious.  Also, as you listen to your files, your ears become trained to what it sounds like.  If you go back to your original source, you may notice some differences.  That's when you are in trouble :-).  It sounds like you are starting to fall victim to this.  It certainly happened to me with my 105kbps ATRAC files and is now starting to me with m
y 192 VBR mp3 files.

Personally I use LAME mp3 because of the portability and gapless support (I use a iPod and a Squeezebox to play my files - both support the the LAME gapless tags).  I encode with a 192 VBR bitrate.  To my ears on my equipment, it has always been transparent to me.  This has been for the past 2 years.  I am now starting to notice small artifacts in my music here and there that I wasn't aware of before.  Ugh.  In my car and at work, which is where my iPod is used, it isn't an issue.  But on my better quality home stereo with my Squeezebox, I am starting to notice the difference.  For this reason, I am considering buying some 1TB drives and upgrading to FLAC for the squeeezebox.  But the mp3s will continue to be good enough for my iPod.

Regarding what tools to use, it is a matter of personal preference.  EAC and dbPowerAmp can ensure that you get good rips and let you know when a rip goes bad.  WMP can give you good rips, but you won't know when they go bad.  Which tool you use depends on how particular you are about guaranteeing good rips of your CDs.

Ultimately, you have to go with what sounds best to your ears and what you are most comfortable with.


Another bogus post.

NEWBIE: Which codec to choose?

Reply #22 –
What has happened to this board?? There sure is a lot of trash advice floating around!

To answer the original poster, if you are interested in perceptual transparency (as in, "I can't tell this from the CD"), then check the HA.org wiki on how to set up Exact Audio Copy (EAC) with Lame (the best MP3 encoder according to listening tests performed here). That'll ensure your CDs are ripped correctly (no pops and skips), and encoded with the most compatible format, and a very high quality codec.

WMA unfortunately failed pretty miserably on those same listening tests, but I agree it is easier to set up.

What settings to use with Lame?

Simple advice: Just use -V2.
More complex advice: Run some ABX tests and determine what bitrate you need for transparency. -V2 works for almost everybody.

Sorry about the lack of links/references... this is more than i'd usually post for such a common question, but i wanted this thread to have SOME sort of answer for you (Greynol you aren't exactly helping). they're all things you can find on here with search. And sorry about the misinformation above.

NEWBIE: Which codec to choose?

Reply #23 –
Moodyda,

WMA Std 128kbps VBR Peak 2-pass has been very transparent for me and slightly smaller file sizes than Lame MP3.  Unfortunately I don't know of a way to force 2-pass unless you are using Windows Media Encoder and/or the command-line add-on.  I've ripped my CD's using EAC to FLAC, WMA Lossless, and WMA Standard.

An option for you to avoid the setup of EAC would be to use WMP to rip to WMA Lossless, and then convert to WMA Standard with Windows Media Encoder (which forces 2-pass by default I believe).

NEWBIE: Which codec to choose?

Reply #24 –
One of the reasons I've stuck with MP3 is to enable me to apply ReplayGain to all my files, and have them play at an equal volume regardless of the player I use.

While a good CD ripper will apply ReplayGain to a file before converting it, this irreversibly alters the encoded data. Many audio formats can be scanned after they're created and ReplayGain tags added, but this then requires the player being used to support those ReplayGain tags. While most PC audio players do support them unfortunately most standalone or portable audio players do not, and it's when listening to music on a portable player with headphones that I'd most prefer to have ReplayGain working. There's nothing more annoying than having to be constantly adjusting the volume.

So.... I convert to MP3 and then use MP3Gain to scan and apply ReplayGain to the files. MP3Gain not only adds tags, it modifies the volume of the MP3 file itself. This is a completely reversible process, as while I don't understand exactly how it works, I believe part of the data in each frame of an MP3 file tells the MP3 player how loud that frame is. MP3Gain simply alters the bit of data in each frame to match the required overall ReplayGain volume (well because of limitations in the MP3 format the volume changes of a file can only be 1.5db or a multiple of) and then writes tags so that players which support ReplayGain can still produce the exact volume required. A 1.5db minimum adjustment however is still close enough for 99% of MP3s to sound like they're at the same volume (If none of that explanation is completely technically correct please forgive me).

Personally, I could put up with small, hardly noticeable artefacts in the audio if it means all my files are of the same volume, as small artefacts are far less annoying than a constant volume variation between songs. Not that I can say I actually notice any artefacts. I encode using the Lame V2 preset and that seems transparent to me.

If there was another program (maybe there is and I'm just not aware of it) that could apply ReplayGain to other audio formats in the same way MP3Gain does to MP3s, or if all audio players supported ReplayGain tags, I might consider changing formats if I could find a quality/file size reason for doing so. I did consider switching to Ogg at one stage, but the ReplayGain issue put a stop to that.

I'm not sure why someone earlier suggested not using joint stereo encoding. Probably because of the myth that it effects the independence of each of the stereo channels, but in fact it does not.