Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: pls suggest optimal quality-size home audio format

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Mars
    Posts
    164
    Thanks
    115
    Thanked 10 Times in 9 Posts

    pls suggest optimal quality-size home audio format

    Is it true MP3 44.1 112kbps = CD player quality = WMA 44.1 64kbps for music? If not what could be equal to this quality level in OGG, AC3? Yes this quality is enough for my home listening. 8-)

  2. #2
    Member m^2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Ślůnsk, PL
    Posts
    1,612
    Thanks
    30
    Thanked 65 Times in 47 Posts
    Depends on encoder, but no, it's untrue. AC3 and OGG with good encoder may be near CD quality at 112 kbps for most tracks. There will still be audible artifacts from time to time. MP3 - no way. And at 64 kbps don't seek transparency either.
    Home listening? Depends on your ears, your equipment, your attention level, your general sensitivity to artifacts.
    Do read:
    http://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php...istening_Tests

    Opus is the top dog now, though still not transparent at 96 kbps in 2014 test even though it used 107 kbps actually, so I suggest that you use it and go with a notch higher bitrate.

    Why do you care though? It's a long time since I saw somebody starved for lossy audio storage space...

  3. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to m^2 For This Useful Post:

    necros (26th March 2016),schnaader (25th March 2016)

  4. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    usa
    Posts
    56
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 9 Times in 6 Posts
    Lossy audio at this point makes absolutely no sense. 1 TB drives are $39... Thousands of uncompressed CDs can be stored for that price.

    Forego lossy audio entirely, and go with .FLAC which is of course lossless and absolutely indistinguishable from the original and digitially identical.

  5. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    G
    Posts
    372
    Thanks
    26
    Thanked 22 Times in 15 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by zyzzle View Post
    Lossy audio at this point makes absolutely no sense. 1 TB drives are $39... Thousands of uncompressed CDs can be stored for that price.

    Forego lossy audio entirely, and go with .FLAC which is of course lossless and absolutely indistinguishable from the original and digitially identical.

    yes this is also the way i would go flac is widely used fast and has a ratio which is ok

  6. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    856
    Thanks
    45
    Thanked 104 Times in 82 Posts
    If you wanna go lossy i would recommende Using AAC format. its pretty nice iso standard and does way better than mpeg layer 3.
    mpeg layer3 has some inherited flaws in is design. ( lack of scale factor block 21 and some stringent restriction on block size mixing)

    What is acceptable quality is a very subjective matter. and would require you to either do ABX or ABCHR testing for yourself.

    I would suggest starting in around the ~128kb - ~192kbits area
    Use Qaac which is a frontend to apples AAC encoder, as apples encoder seems to be getting the best results in listening test.

  7. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Moscow
    Posts
    3
    Thanks
    24
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    del

  8. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    24
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts
    If possible, I would go for lossless. FLAC is the format to use. The GPU-FLAC-compressor FLACCL is faster and compresses better than the CPU-compressor.

    From FLAC you can convert to any lossy format very fast on modern CPUs.

    In the world of the lossy codecs I would use AAC because the quality ist better than MP3 and the software- and hardware-support is almost as good and by far good enough for me. MP3 is worse in quality but better in support. OGG Vorbis is worse in support and similar in quality. OPUS is very promising but bad in support at this early moment.

    For AAC I prefer the Fraunhofer Codec from WinAmp with the command-line-interface fhgaacenc.
    Others prefer the Quicktime Codec with one of the command-line-interfaces (QAAC or QTAACENC). You cannot go wrong with any of them.

    There are two other AAC encoders that I test once in a while: Fraunhofer FDK AAC is open source. When I tested it, years ago, the quality was not on par with the other Fraunhofer codec and Quicktime. The other encoder is Nero AAC, which is not developed anymore. Quality was on par with Quicktime. Nero supports uncommon parameters, like High Efficiency Encoding in combination with medium and high bitrates. If you just want to compress audio, stick with Fraunhofer (Winamp) or Quicktime.

  9. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    856
    Thanks
    45
    Thanked 104 Times in 82 Posts
    I agree overall with Sebastian Flac and AAC gives you a very big playback platform and withouth nowing any about the palyback platform those big decisindg factors.

    There exist better lossless compressor in terms of compression strength but then you might end up not being able to play it on your favorite or a new device.
    in overall terms i belvie flacs has the best attractiveness

    I'm regards to aac i would still recommand aac over fraunhoffer both both both are the top2 on my list so as sebastin says you are not goign really wrong selecting any of them them.

    this listening test is pretty old and improvements can have been made

    http://listening-tests.hydrogenaud.i...a/results.html

    QAAC and fraunhoffer splist the first place. Qaad is slight ahead but FH edges itself in so the confidence of Qaac being better is not above 95%.
    considering subjective testing and the possibility for improvement in the last 5 years it defiantly ok to say the are even

    However looking the the bitrates at the same time Qaac gaining it with 6% less bitrate. now these is again only a small different but seeing that Qaac has

    "Better" average quality
    less bitrate

    I would clearly prefer Qaac over FH oven quality/size alone.

    Since the difference is so minuscule though, Other factors might come in play. If you already have the one but not the other you might as well go with that one. or any other personal preference. Also you might just like the sound from one better than the sound from another ( if you can discern a difference at all)

  10. #9
    Member m^2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Ślůnsk, PL
    Posts
    1,612
    Thanks
    30
    Thanked 65 Times in 47 Posts
    Hardware availability is a great point.

    Though I would like to add that AAC is patented, which limits legal software options.
    No issue if you use software from the largest vendors, though smaller ones may have not paid for it.

    And personally, the mere fact that is a patented is a big blowback for me.

Similar Threads

  1. "Bits per quality" metric
    By porneL in forum Data Compression
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 5th October 2013, 21:09
  2. Home made Lossy format (quantetization approach)
    By toi007 in forum Data Compression
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 7th July 2012, 20:52
  3. which tool has the samllest size/orignal size * time
    By l1t in forum Data Compression
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 27th August 2010, 06:10
  4. Do you have a 64-bit machine at home?
    By encode in forum The Off-Topic Lounge
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 4th December 2009, 14:09
  5. Frequent Bits Elimination Method - suggest please
    By Scientist in forum Data Compression
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 28th September 2009, 18:30

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •