The best lossy codec (35)

1 Name: 4n0n4ym0u5 h4xx0r : 2007-08-13 10:25 ID:Wqh0hyEm

Quality wise whats the very best lossy codec?

2 Name: Redhatter : 2007-08-13 22:02 ID:Heaven

Depends on the application... but maybe http://dev.gentoo.org/~redhatter/misc/mab135-project.pdf will help your decision process.

I actually did a comparison between MP3, Vorbis and AAC as a university project. Using analytical means, it was determined that for an AAC file at 128Kbps, Vorbis was roughly equivalent at 160Kbps, and MP3 was equivalent at 224Kbps.

3 Name: 4n0n4ym0u5 h4xx0r : 2007-08-14 19:11 ID:ybK/KsrQ

I personally prefer AAC, but it's also because i actually LIKE using iTunes.

4 Name: 4n0n4ym0u5 h4xx0r : 2007-08-14 20:55 ID:pTddBo0j

oog's pretty good, but it doesn't play everywhere.
WMA, WMApro, and WMA variable bit rate, I must say are pretty damn good as well. Just about anything that's come out since MP3 will be better.

5 Name: 4n0n4ym0u5 h4xx0r : 2007-08-14 21:11 ID:Wqh0hyEm

>>3

Really?
I tried AAC at 128 kbps and it was horrible, 320 is decent though.

6 Name: 4n0n4ym0u5 h4xx0r : 2007-08-14 21:55 ID:BlAltf/i

I've heard talk that Musepack (MPC) is the best at higher bitrates.

7 Name: 4n0n4ym0u5 h4xx0r : 2007-08-14 23:22 ID:Wqh0hyEm

I swear that OGG Vorbis at it's highest setting sounds almost exactly like a lossless file.

8 Name: 4n0n4ym0u5 h4xx0r : 2007-08-15 08:57 ID:Heaven

>>7
I'd say that you're experiencing from the placebo effect. Do a double blind test of a mp3 @ 128kbps bitrate and the same mp3 @ 256kbps bitrate and you're unlikely to tell the difference.

9 Name: 4n0n4ym0u5 h4xx0r : 2007-08-15 21:09 ID:Heaven

>>8
i've done that, and i can tell the difference between 224 and 256 mp3. anything higher than 256 i can't tell any difference. but i use flac for everything except putting music on my phone because my phone can only play aac or mp3.

10 Name: Redhatter : 2007-08-16 10:57 ID:Heaven

>>8 Actually, MP3 compression tends to fail hopelessly at higher frequencies...

Listen for distortion in percussion instruments like high hats/symbols, and in audience applause. Both of these contain many spectral components that are difficult to compress, giving rise to distortion.

I switched from VBR MP3 (160~192Kbps) to VBR Vorbis (112~128Kbps) and noticed an immediate difference in the sound quality. My later Fourier analysis of the codecs later confirmed what I was hearing.

11 Name: 4n0n4ym0u5 h4xx0r : 2007-11-06 23:13 ID:sWLSJbrg

>>2 Can you publish those full results?
I'm very surprised that AAC did better than Vorbis.
Were you using the latest aoTuV?

12 Name: 4n0n4ym0u5 h4xx0r : 2007-11-07 00:03 ID:Heaven

I wish WMP would be vorbis compatible.
I guess that's Micro$oft for you.

13 Name: 4n0n4ym0u5 h4xx0r : 2007-11-07 01:35 ID:Heaven

I wish iTunes would be vorbis compatible.
I guess that's Apple for you.

14 Name: 4n0n4ym0u5 h4xx0r : 2007-11-07 14:50 ID:Heaven

WMP is Vorbis compatible, by installing the codec. Microsoft is actually better than Apple in that regard. Fuckin' Apple.

15 Name: 4n0n4ym0u5 h4xx0r : 2007-11-07 21:15 ID:YDFcCZPc

High-Bitrate AAC for audio and h264 for video in an MKV container, with ASS subtitles if required, are the stuff dreams are made of.

16 Name: 4n0n4ym0u5 h4xx0r : 2007-11-10 14:01 ID:AwLs4Tpv

>>15
vorbis is still superior as it is free.

17 Name: 4n0n4ym0u5 h4xx0r : 2007-11-10 21:18 ID:rvq5mlMl

Dumpster trash is superior to fine restaurant cuisine as it is free.

18 Name: 4n0n4ym0u5 h4xx0r : 2007-11-11 02:17 ID:DuUSpVPU

>>17
That is a shitty comparison.

19 Name: 4n0n4ym0u5 h4xx0r : 2007-11-11 09:34 ID:Heaven

>>18 Well done, you understood the argument made by >>17. You win minus three internets.

20 Name: 4n0n4ym0u5 h4xx0r : 2007-11-11 21:24 ID:Heaven

>>17
That is a shitty comparison. Vorbis and AAC are of comparable quality at high bitrates. In contrast, dumpster trash and fine restaurant cuisine stand far apart in quality, so the fact that one is free is not usually the deciding factor between the two.

21 Name: dmpk2k!hinhT6kz2E : 2007-11-11 22:04 ID:Heaven

> My later Fourier analysis of the codecs later confirmed what I was hearing.

The use of anything other than double-blind ABX tests have been pretty thoroughly debunked. Spectrograms are popular yet quite useless; your eyes and ears are different things.

22 Name: 4n0n4ym0u5 h4xx0r : 2007-11-11 22:51 ID:sWLSJbrg

Double-blind, yes, but ABX isn't necessarily the best way.

I can't find the paper now, but there's a test where you're given an interface to listen to three audio recordings: one is the reference and is labeled as such, and of the other two, one is the reference and the other has been mauled by lossy codecs in some way (randomly, without a label which is which). You give each of the two samples a score from 1 to 5 where 5 = indistinguishable from the reference, 4 = perceptible difference, 3 = slightly annoying artifacts, 2 = annoying artifacts, 1 = unlistenable garbage. (Thus if the sample that is exactly the same as the reference gets a 3, the results are suspect.) I think this is possibly better than ABX testing, and would like to spread the word about it.

23 Name: 4n0n4ym0u5 h4xx0r : 2007-11-16 09:16 ID:fTDmc9gT

>>17 was never saying that Vorbis was shit, they were saying that something being free isn't the only factor in deciding how good something is.

24 Name: 4n0n4ym0u5 h4xx0r : 2007-11-18 00:20 ID:AwLs4Tpv

>>23
AAC and Vorbis are similar in technical capability. The thing that sets Vorbis apart from AAC is that it is free. That is why it is better.

25 Name: 4n0n4ym0u5 h4xx0r : 2007-11-19 02:23 ID:Heaven

Also, outside of Apple products (which admittedly are pretty much a monopoly, sadly, but still), Vorbis enjoys better hardware and software support.

26 Name: 4n0n4ym0u5 h4xx0r : 2007-11-29 04:13 ID:0Ql9y+vh

>22

Nice idea, I think I'll try that.

27 Name: 22 : 2007-12-24 18:16 ID:Heaven

It's called ABC-HR, I found out. A is the reference signal, and either B or C is the Hidden Reference.

28 Name: 4n0n4ym0u5 h4xx0r : 2008-01-04 01:34 ID:ibBMbXbv

horribly late, but h.264 would be my pick for overall size/quality

29 Name: 4n0n4ym0u5 h4xx0r : 2008-01-04 13:38 ID:Heaven

For video, definitely. The bulk of the discussion is talking about audio but the OP never specified that.

30 Name: 4n0n4ym0u5 h4xx0r : 2008-01-05 21:10 ID:sWLSJbrg

Haha, I didn't even think about video.

I guess video's more complex because you have to factor in how many dots are used (e.g. 720x480), while for audio, we all pretty much agree on 44100 dots per second (and for some reason, lossy codecs aren't used for the few high-resolution things like 24bit/96khz). Are there standard recommended settings for video encoders, same as audio encoders, that'll generally give "transparency"?

31 Name: 4n0n4ym0u5 h4xx0r : 2008-03-31 17:13 ID:iBYPaAZ5

JPEG

32 Name: 4n0n4ym0u5 h4xx0r : 2008-04-13 00:54 ID:g5ad86Px

For video I use h264 (well, the free x264 alternative, actually).
For audio... ogg or AAC (or AC3 if it is available/required).
In a MKV container, most probably.

Basically, what >>15 said.

33 Name: 4n0n4ym0u5 h4xx0r : 2008-04-13 14:07 ID:Heaven

Clarification, h264 is a codec, x264 is an implementation of the h264 codec. It isn't an alternative to it.

34 Name: 4n0n4ym0u5 h4xx0r : 2008-04-17 03:37 ID:ibBMbXbv

>>30
you can set alpha channels, but no transparency.

also, just for the sake of mentioning - 720x480 is a wrong aspect ratio for computer intended media. it's computer equivilent would be 640x480
720x480 would be correct for tv screens which have taller pixels (4:3 rather than a monitor's 1:1 PAR)

35 Name: 4n0n4ym0u5 h4xx0r : 2008-04-20 01:59 ID:t/J2A1Yz

REAL MEDIA VARIABLE BITRATE :-p

This thread has been closed. You cannot post in this thread any longer.