High Rate Audio Encoders

[big_green_jelly_bean]

I would like to find a good High bit rate CD->Audio converter. I need a standard that will play with all the major players even Windows Media Player on a Vista machine.

Quality is the key, with size as a secondary concern. It would be nice if its user friendly. I really need high quality compressed audio. Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks
Mike

[shon3i]

Quality is the key
LC-AAC and everything higher than 256kbps is for you, but listening aac on wmp is imposible without this plugin from Coding Techologies http://www.orban.com/plugin/

Full compactibilty you get only with MP3, but if you want good quality then Lame or Fraunhofer encoder must be used.

[Kurtnoise]

I would like to find a good High bit rate CD->Audio converter. I need a standard that will play with all the major players even Windows Media Player on a Vista machine.
I'd say lossless format like FLAC, Wavpack or WMA9LS...There are some good directshow decoders available now.

[big_green_jelly_bean]

what is the compression like on the lossless format?

I dont have 600mb for 12 songs:(

LC-AAC is nice... is it really worth the trouble (compatibility with players) over mp3?

[smok3]

id say go for eac + mp3 (lame).

[Blue_MiSfit]

If you're worried about playing on Windows Media Player, then I think WMA Pro (Lossless) is the only way to go if you really want best quality. Lossless codecs are usually around 1/2 to 2/3 the size of the original, so thats between 350 and 500 mb per album... roughly.

<3 lossless.

[tebasuna51]

...
Quality is the key, with size as a secondary concern.
...
I dont have 600mb for 12 songs
...
First you need choice the size range. Maybe this can help you:
Format (stereo/44.1 KHz) BitRate Size (%)
------------------------------ ------- --------
CD-Audio original 1411.2 100
Lossless Flac, Monkey,... ~700 50
HighBitrate MP3, OGG, WMA, AAC 256 18
LowBitrate AAC-HE v2 48 3
If HigBitrate (18% size than original, 1.8 Mb/min) is enough for you, you can use any encoder because, at this bitrates, the difference is unnoticeable. For compatibility my recommended is MP3.

If you need more compression MP3 is worse than OGG, AAC, WMA.

[Soulhunter]

Whats with MPC? Should outperform the others at higher bitrates, no?


Bye

[Digga]

LC-AAC and everything higher than 256kbps is for you
(...)
Full compactibilty you get only with MP3, but if you want good quality then Lame or Fraunhofer encoder must be used.I would strongly suggest a lower bitrate, as 256 is most likely overkill for any average listener. a bitrate of e.g. 160 (or even lower) could be chosen for a start to see if it's transparent.
as for the MP3 encoder LAME is the only way to go ;)

If you're worried about playing on Windows Media Player, then I think WMA Pro (Lossless) is the only way to go if you really want best quality.as pointed out by Kurtnoise other lossless formats will also play fine with the proper filters.

If you need more compression MP3 is worse than OGG, AAC, WMA.MP3 (e.g. LAME) is not worse than WMA standard. that's MS marketing BS.

Whats with MPC? Should outperform the others at higher bitrates, no?http://www.rjamorim.com/test/multiformat128/plot18.png
MPC is not bad at all but honestly I wouldn't bother with it. there are far more mature and more promising formats to chose from IMO.


@ big_green_jelly_bean:
if you want your compressed audio files to play virtually everywhere out of the box chose MP3.
depending mostly on your ears, transparent quality can be archived with mid range bitrates.

as already suggested AAC is also a very good choice otherwise.
and of course then there's lossless if you can live with the size.
thanks for the rough estimation tebasuna51 :)

[pinkie_1]

MPC is not bad at all but honestly I wouldn't bother with it. there are far more mature and more promising formats to chose from IMO.
*cough* huh ?
Far more mature... :D
Now, let's clarify one thing, shall we ? One of the major reasons for which SV8 is still in it's early development it's the devs themselves considering Musepack good enough in the state it already is (for quite some years, might I add).

BTW, don't just trust some nice figures that you happened to see here and there...

On topic :
(just my opinion)
AAC for bitrates < 100,
Vorbis, AAC < 150,
Musepack, Vorbis < 200.
For averaged bitrates exceeding 200 kbps the threshold of perceptual transparency will be reached almost anytime. In the (very) rare cases it won't, MPEG-1 layer III or Vorbis should be quite close to Musepack, so a differentiation might be extremely difficult.

If other things come into play, then MPEG-1 layer II/III or AAC are to be used.

[Digga]

*cough* huh ?
Far more mature... :D
Now, let's clarify one thing, shall we ? One of the major reasons for which SV8 is still in it's early development it's the devs themselves considering Musepack good enough in the state it already is (for quite some years, might I add).
BTW, don't just trust some nice figures that you happened to see here and there...;) yes, let's clarify.
the main reason why Musepack was aboded literally for years is that the later main developer (Mr. Klemm) didn't had time and interest in further developing the codec.
in contrast to you I know what I'm talking about and base my writings on facts instead of... whatever your assumptions are based on.
further more, these 'nice little figures' are results of well conducted objective listening tests (http://www.rjamorim.com/test/) which I consider far more trustable than your assumptions.

I suggest you read up the last few years of Musepack history at Hydrogenaudio (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php) before voicing any more interpretations of reality.
any more off topic discussion can be held in the appropriate forum.

On topic :
(just my opinion)
AAC for bitrates < 100,
Vorbis, AAC < 150,
Musepack, Vorbis < 200.indeed, this is just your opinion and not of great worth to any other person who might have better or worse hearing abilities, equipment, etc.

[pinkie_1]

@ digga :

Stop trying to piss me off. Having different opinions does not entitle you to flame mindlessly. I haven't insulted you, and I can't find any good reason for you to react the way you did.

[HeadBangeR77]

I'm not a prof at audio encoding, but one thing has literally struck my eyes! :eek:
Most of you are talking about bitrate, as if it was the only quality indicator ou there. Well, while encoding VBR, be it AAC, Vorbis, Musepack or even LAME MP3, it depends much on the source complexity - I think you all do know that, but only seem to have forgotten in the middle of all that arguiing ...

@ big_green_jelly_bean
Whatever you will encode, plz, use VBR. IMHO V2/V1 settings for lame mp3 or Q 5-6 for Vorbis is enough for me, and moreover should be enough for most folks ;)

Just a small example as to the source:
1) Film soundtrack, The Curse of the Black Pearl, lame 3.97, V2 - avg. 161 kbit/s
2) Bruce Dickinson, The Chemical Wedding (poor mastering), lame 3.97, V2: 146-218 kbit/s, avg. 185 kbit/s
3) Alice Cooper, Hey Stoopid (original, not remastered), lame 3.97, V2: 205-230 kbit/s, avg. 215 kbit/s
4) Steve Vai, Alien Love Secrets, lame 3.97, V2: 212-240 kbit/s, avg. 225 kbit/s.

The same codec, the same VBR quality settings (to be exact: V2, -q2)

Just my two cents. Point.

PS. I would recommend Exact Audio Copy, as above, and use custom tags, if you care about tags ;) For instance:
-V 2 --vbr-new -q 2 -b 128 --add-id3v2 --pad-id3v2 --ta "%a" --tt "%t" --tl "%g" --ty "%y" --tn "%n" --tg "%m" --tc "Ripped by HeadBangeR77" %s %d

[Soulhunter]

If I had to draw a comparison to video compression...

MP3 -> MPEG2: Mature, wide support, used alot, old but still good, not so good for low bitrates

MPC -> XviD: Already mature, not much supported, very good at high bitrate scenarios

AAC -> x264: New, not much supported, very good at mid-low bitrate scenarios


Some ppl go for MPEG2 [DVD/SVCD] as they need HW support, others use x264 coz they want to squeeze a movie -> 1CD, and some use XviD as they think its still superior for high bitrates [reaching transparent results].


Bye

[Digga]

Stop trying to piss me off. Having different opinions does not entitle you to flame mindlessly. I haven't insulted you, and I can't find any good reason for you to react the way you did.if you start to sell opinions or something that you might have heard (just guessing here) as facts I guess you have to live with other people correcting that. and that's what I did.
the fact that you didn't react on that with further backing up your points but instead accuse me of flaming doesn't make you any more credible in this case (i.e. you don't know what you're talking about here) IMHO.
and of course different opinions doesn't entitle anyone to flame, including you and me. I can't see me trying to insult or flame you. if anything it's the other way round.
different opinions in the case of transparent settings for codecs are close to useless in most cases though as everyone has different abilities and setups. do you see my point?
if you want to further continue this discussion I welcome you to do this via PM.

Most of you are talking about bitrate, as if it was the only quality indicator ou there. Well, while encoding VBR, be it AAC, Vorbis, Musepack or even LAME MP3, it depends much on the source complexity - I think you all do know that, but only seem to have forgotten in the middle of all that arguiing ...yes, good point HeadBangeR77.
a difficult source for a given encoder just needs a higher bitrate in VBR mode and the encoder should chose so automatically if it's good tuned and not buggy.
so with identical settings and two samples the quality btw sample A (easy source) and sample B (difficult source) should be the same, just the bitrate and thus the size will be higher for B.

I'm not too sure how other people here use the term bitrate if it's not very specific.
I think though that if one talks about bitrate in general here that it is aassumed to be averaged around all samples.

[HeadBangeR77]

yes, good point HeadBangeR77.
a difficult source for a given encoder just needs a higher bitrate in VBR mode and the encoder should chose so automatically if it's good tuned and not buggy.
so with identical settings and two samples the quality btw sample A (easy source) and sample B (difficult source) should be the same, just the bitrate and thus the size will be higher for B.
Thanks ;)
Well, I've given just a few examples above. For the kind of music (not soudntracks ;)) I encode, I'm usually at the upper limit of the bitrate range, or even above. For instance: compare my examples with sort of average ranges prepared by the guys from Hydrogen:
http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Recommended_LAME#VBR_.28variable_bitrate.29_settings

I'm not too sure how other people here use the term bitrate if it's not very specific.
I think though that if one talks about bitrate in general here that it is aassumed to be averaged around all samples.
That's why I think we should either talk about bitrate ranges or specific encoder quality settings, e.g. LAME V(3)2-V1, Vorbis Q5-Q7, AAC LC 0.50-0.60 with NeroEncoder.

regards,
HDBR77

[Digga]

That's why I think we should either talk about bitrate ranges or specific encoder quality settings, e.g. LAME V(3)2-V1, Vorbis Q5-Q7, AAC LC 0.50-0.60 with NeroEncoder.yes, it probably makes most sense to refer to presets in case of VBR, which should be used anyway as the OT's biggest concern is quality.

Thanks ;)you're welcome ;)

[big_green_jelly_bean]

I appreciate the amazing responses... The world of audio is complex, and your help is appreciated.

The thing is, that Lossless compression is a bit of an overkill for almost everyone.

Now I am NOT the adverage listner. I own 2 sets of B&W 603, an ASW 600 a B&W Sub and a wonderfull Marantz. I run all of this off of my HTPC, which happens to be hooked up to a wonderfully oversized Plasma 41" 9th Generation Panasonic HDTV.

So yes... Quality matters.

However Draconian and Non-supported standards are a problem, when I want to use them in my MP3 type player.

So I keep 2 copies (Im a bit of a nut)... And I need a second copy that will sound premo.

I also would love a Ripper that supports IPv3 or whatever its called on another standard.

http://www.ebu.ch/CMSimages/en/tec_doc_t3296_tcm6-10497.pdf
is a wonderfull document on different standards... except Im cant understand the I's in the damn graphs... must represent the margin of error.

Anyways, from what I have read, is that a significant portion of the population can hear the difference between regular lossless recordings and compression, upto and including 198kbps. Above that, the percentagedrop fast.

As far as for MPEG MP3 audio rates, DTS uses around 3XX bps for 6 channels (5+1). Now the bonus of this situation is that the loss, or flaw, from low compression on one channel is often covered up by the other 4.

Granted... MPEG-4 should of included a much higher BPS, but last I knew they are still pumping out DTS and AC3... Guess the people with 7K+ invested in their audio gear just doesnt matter.... cry:(

With that said, the DTS version of Gorillaz live show, and of Coachella are amazing. Rage Against the machine uses distortion in their music, but Tom Morello's masterwork is much appreciated.

I would highly recommend the Gorillaz DVD, if you have a audio system capable of delivering the quality of music it hungers for.

------------------------------
Ok... so What RIPPER is good... Like I said, I need Meta Data, and a good High KBPS rip.

Vorbis seems to be taking off, and Winamp will rip it... however I want a higher "Better" way to pull this off. Any suggestions?

[HeadBangeR77]

(...)
Ok... so What RIPPER is good... Like I said, I need Meta Data, and a good High KBPS rip.

Vorbis seems to be taking off, and Winamp will rip it... however I want a higher "Better" way to pull this off. Any suggestions?

Just one IMHO (I'm running out of time ;)) :
http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Exact_Audio_Copy

It's the best ripper I know in terms of quality of audio extracting (reveals errors, where other rippers would smoothly go ahead) and a good frontend/GUI for various encoders, including LAME, Vorbis or APE (these I know, 'cause I use them). You'll also find guides for EAC and each codec of your choice, excluding, however, AAC. Good luck!

[Digga]

The thing is, that Lossless compression is a bit of an overkill for almost everyone.not if you have enough space and use this method to archive and trancode when necessary (i.e. for portable use).
otherwise you're certainly right.

Now I am NOT the adverage listner. I own 2 sets of B&W 603, an ASW 600 a B&W Sub and a wonderfull Marantz. I run all of this off of my HTPC, which happens to be hooked up to a wonderfully oversized Plasma 41" 9th Generation Panasonic HDTV.while hardware certainly matters, your hearing abilities are much more important in this case IMO.

However Draconian and Non-supported standards are a problem, when I want to use them in my MP3 type player.go for MP3 then or maybe AAC.

I also would love a Ripper that supports IPv3 or whatever its called on another standard.are you referring to ID3, a tagging standard?

Anyways, from what I have read, is that a significant portion of the population can hear the difference between regular lossless recordings and compression, upto and including 198kbps. Above that, the percentagedrop fast.that heavily depends on the codec and settings used. also, for casual listening I highly doubt that most people will even notice a difference btw the original and a ~140kbps VBR MP3.

Granted... MPEG-4 should of included a much higher BPS, but last I knew they are still pumping out DTS and AC3... Guess the people with 7K+ invested in their audio gear just doesnt matter.... cry:(MPEG-4 has higher beats per second (BPS)? what do DTS and AC3 have to do with that?
no offense meant, but thats utter nonsense :)

Ok... so What RIPPER is good... Like I said, I need Meta Data, and a good High KBPS rip.as already suggested by HeadBangeR77, EAC is a good secure ripper, along with CDex.

Vorbis seems to be taking off, and Winamp will rip it... however I want a higher "Better" way to pull this off. Any suggestions?if you want high compatibility don't use Ogg Vorbis. for the ripper see above.


further links for general questions, audio codecs, rippers, tutorials, etc:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=7516
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=16295

[big_green_jelly_bean]

That was bits per second, and was suppose to be kbps... sorry for the typo. DTS and AC3 both use the mp3 audio compression method.

Yes, I mean the ID3 standard... another typo.

I hear there is a version 3? I guess it has lyrics? is anyone supporting, should I be looking into this? etc...

Thank you

[HeadBangeR77]

ID3 V1 & V2 are just tags with some info on the track : V1 is more basic and limited in terms of characters for each tag, V2 contains more information and has higher characters' limit. Don't know too much about V3.

The problem is software & hardware support - usually they stick to V1 only, so the rest is useless.

The 2nd problem - each format (MP3.mp3, Vorbis.ogg etc.) has its own tags, because it uses its own containers. The help at Hydrogenaudio I've given you a link to, deals with tags as well.

PS. As to ID3 V3 - Google is your friend ;)