Poll: Your preferred music format?
How do you store your music? Let us know in this week's poll.
If you're an iRiver fanboy then good old OGG might be your friend, or iTunes can mean AAC. Others many prefer to shun digital distribution and storage altogether and stick with good old CD or Vinyl - it's not very portable but far better quality than anything digital unless you insist on being lossless like with Apple or FLAC?
You could be real old school and still use good old Chrome Oxide tape or even still listen to the sounds of Atari in MIDI?
We have had a poll running in the forums for a couple of days now and there are already some interesting results. Don't let that put you off adding your vote though, so what are you waiting for?! Get into the forums and vote!
Previous Article
140 Comments
Discuss in the forums Replymay as well anyway, in the grand scheme of things it really doesn't take up all that much space
But if there was a "I don't care as long as it plays" option, I'd go for that one.
If FLAC would be more mainstream, I'd re-rip everything in FLAC, but for now it's a waste of space (and I'm not a audiophile)
I'm not too fussed about all this lossless stuff though. I don't like low bit-rate MP3s but anything 192 and above sounds just fine to me. Even 128's ok sometimes. Beggars can't be choosers and all that.
Amen to that.
Most of my library is mp3/ogg however since a lot of stuff was found as mp3 and so converting it to ogg or flac without some highyer quality source available would be pointless.
I use Ogg because it's small, sounds great and more people can listen than flac.
I won't rip any less than 192k/s and prefer to just go the full whack at 320kbps just "cause I can" kinda thing.
I will however buy CD's rather than downloads due to the price. More often than not I can get a proper CD with all the shiny album art for the same price as an iTunes download album and I prefer to be able to hold something for my money when it comes to stuff like movies or music.
If downloads were cheaper, say £2 per album then I'd bother.
Plus with an X-Fi soundcard the 3D crystaliser enabled does help improve the quality of most the mp3 files I have at home.
<A88>
What about midi ? not in the poll ? ^^
edit:having read all your post, MIDI seems entirely appropriate ;)
<A88>
edit: Seems like I am the only one so far :)
<A88>
Can't beat the feeling of having a physical copy - sublime!
Sam
so i use encode stuff to flac and mp3 when i get a new cd :)
I prefer DTS on movies, though. (and voted this, because I'm special :P )
I also have a bunch of CD's, but physical media is just to much work to listen to. I have most of my CDs ripped to MP3. I just want to fire up Winamp, and have all my music just a few clicks away. (That sounds like an advertisement, doesn't it?)
Also, mp3s are easier to get if downloading.
What does that actually mean?
are you saying that FLAC doesn't?
Just not practical for me; it's outside of most listeners' financial and lifestyle boundaries to make sensible use of it.
The thread states nothing specific to portable music, its simply asking in which format you prefer your music, whether it be portable, on your pc, hifi etc
- H.
I usually grab 320 CBR MP3 or at the very least 192 and both sound just fine. 128 however does sound absolutely abysmal by comparison.
*Envy24 HT-S -> Creek OBH21SE -> Senny HD495s. Missing a DAC :(
I started ripping CDs to FLAC before I could tell the difference on it all simply because if CDs got nicked, for instance, I had lossless copies (this has come in handy!) I had the space, so may as well.
After I upgraded sound cards and speakers, theres a pretty clear difference between FLAC and ~200k VBR MP3 for the majority of music.
As for the HDD space argument - I don't get it
Space is so vastly cheap and in excess these days.
There's really no reason for the other formats.
Lossless is nice, but chances are ppl's audio systems aren't all that great anyways. That, or they play the music in cars (ew).
Flac is great for keeping a backup of your music but as most people have mentioned the discernible difference in quality over mp3 is not that great on most portable players to justify the extra space it takes up imo.
I do try and record at 192Kbps or above but find 128 OK for some music.
Aggies
I do listen to some MP3's at work on my headphones, but they are mostly 320kbps ones that I ripped of my own CD's. I can put up with that for a couple of hours but then I start to miss being able to feel the bass and all the other benefits you get from listening to a decent Hi-Fi and I have to switch off.
well said, wma got my vote to.
Yes it adds 10mins to my linux set up times to get them running but I prefer them over mp3
The only problem is that my mp3-player only accepts mp3 and wma. I did install this:
http://www.cole2k.net/
then windows media player can play almost anything (tho M$ still thinks it knows best as it doesn't want to put WMP in the open with section for ogg files (bleeping dickwads)).
Above 128kbps, most formats will do.
I mainly listen to Metal (Dream Theater, Machine Head ) and here it seems vorbis performs really well (at lo bitrates it causes noisy distortion, but that doesn't show that much, but I think it would do a lot worse on symphonic music).
PS: ogg is only the container format, vorbis is the codec (if you want to correct)
The CD will get tossed onto the shelf after being ripped in Apple lossless. If I want to use the music on some other device I'll run off some AAC versions (my phone and every device seems to play mp4 fine - AAC is not just Apple's people).. most of the time I will burn off a compilation CD for the car.
cant beat it tbh :p (in terms of space and quality, its hardly any worse then a CD tbh)
I mean don't get me wrong, MP3 (when it comes down to the #'s) offers more data, but it's hard to notice it and when it comes to having a 13,000 song list, I want it all to fit on my 40GB Zen and being MP3s they most definitely wouldn't at 128kbps, but WMA does, so that's what I use.....
Yup! Teh best!
Exact Audio Copy (EAC) and LAME (With "--alt preset -extreme" (which gives a vbr mp3 done best)
The difference between CD and MP3 is hardly discernable. As mentioned in another cd-mp3 comparison in this thread the real difference is the really high frequency reverberation which is downplayed, making the music lose a little of that "airy" feeling.
I use this too.;)
I voted for MP3 too, But I burned a bunch of MP3's to CD awhile back and It's in My Mustang and I hardly ever listen to the Radio anymore(Shaker 1000w audio system). ;)
Actually, truthfully, the question is "What is your preferred audio format" - which really means "what do you use most" right? Then MP3 is accurate. But of course, DTS > * :P
Mp3's at 128 for the iPod in the car (can't see the sense in higher bitrates for portables, usually have an engine running or walking along the street with other noises).
One day I'll be bothered to sit down and rip a lossless copy of all the CDs as backups (It's a good idea), but the thought of the hours involved scares me (and the laser on the CD drive!).
-monkey
some formats would simply not work where I work because we aren't allowed to do anything to our pc's
On a good setup it would be a waste to use anything other than a lossless source.
However, I rip my CDs into FLAC for storage, and then convert to mp3 for my mp3 player. Most of my music is still in mp3 though.
Slightly off-topic:
too right
Stuff I get from compressed sources: OGG (I like how it sounds more than MP3)
Some stuff I've been keeping around forever: MP3 (back when there was only MP3)
Backup on my multimedia hard drive: OGG (thankfully my hard drive can playback a lot of formats)
Stuff on my thumb drive attached to my head unit: AAC (because I don't feel like paying $20 for Winamp so that I can get the MP3 encoder)
However the new car cam with the AMI inteface for the evil iPod so I've kept the old library and converted the OGG to MP£ for that. Currently in a retagging nightmare.
If I was starting over I'd rip the CDs to FLAC, but there would be gaps where some have been lost. I don't buy downloads. Physical CDs are far better value.
I wish i could multivote on different formats:
MP3 for compatibilty
DTS for kewl suround sound
Vinyl for nostalgia
etc
its good to have 500gb music at your fingertips :) and if you use a Nokia N800 as a remote, you really cant beat it
That's because (cassette tapes right?) they sucked lol.
I found a cassette tape the other day, guess what was on it.
Hidden: Hanson
Media Monkey - Ogg Vorbis - Creative X-Fi Xmod
Those who said they couldn't tell the difference between low bitrate mp3s (128kb eg) and the higher bit rate Ogg and FLAC music, try turning the volume up and hearing it distort and crucify any music with bass (of course this is subjective and depends on your headphones/earphones).
Plus a decent set of cans is like £150 or somthing crazy like that
After that post, all creditable knowledge on audio has been thrown out the door.
I'm very fortunate to have listened to a decent selection of high end Hi-Fi (things like this) and although I'm definitely no audiophile, i can definitely hear some of the differences in this high end equipment
And i can tell you, even the very nice (and rather expensive) set of headphones my dad has, do not compare to a decent Hi-Fi setup, and if you really like your audio, you would listen to it on a full setup, and not through a set of headphones
I was more going for the whole, a decent set of cans cost $150.
I would not compare headphones to speakers. I only ever use headphones for portable usage (MDR-CD900ST), which are far below the price you named, and are the most neutral cans you will find.
I find it funny that you chose to link me to some old ancient and obsolete tube amp to showoff your high end gear prowess.
You probably should have factored in some other key components. The listening room, and the source. What's the point of having some nice speaker and amp, if the source sucks?
Anyways, you can get amazing cans for under $100 :) (AKG 501, if you can find them)
Your post was very condescending, and quite frankly rude, and doesn't actually add much to the thread
If you want to prove me wrong, go ahead, but make a decent, and complete point
However this is somewhat a grey area, and finding a definitive definition is probably rather hard
I also find it rather amusing you just bashed a $5.5k amplifier, which you didn't even read about
And even then, I'm not convinced that either of the headphones you linked are true audiophile grade pieces of equipment, however, i haven't listened to them, and i don't even know if Ive listened to the best (or what is the best) hell I'm not even sure what the cans i listened to were, i just know they were reckoned to be very good, and their very pricey
Audiophile grade hi-fi is a very difficult area, and really, without listening to it yourself, its hard to judge, the best you can go on besides that is a reviewer you agree with
But my final point, and if we get back on topic
If you are judging your music format through a set of headphones, you are screwing up your source by your listening devices
A great set of headphones will still never beat a good set-up with good speakers, a good amp, a good preamp and a good source (and good cables and a good power source, but we really are getting a bit off here)
the best source is probably vinyl because it hasn't been digitised, however, sound is a personal thing, and some people prefer CD sound to vinyl sound
so i now have to ask you the question wafflesomd, if you believe you are such a prodigy in things related to audio, what setup do you actually have
And just to press on my point that audio is a personal thing, if you buy from a decent vendor (assuming you are buying retail this is, and even a lot of second hand sellers will do the same) in the hi-fi world, you will be allowed to trial the equipment at home for a week before you actually decide you want to buy it
Just to make the point absolutely clear, once more, i am not, and do not claim to be an audiophile, i did however make the point i have been very fortunate to listen to some extremely high end setups, things that cost like $100,000 maybe even more
1. Yah, I read what you posted wrong.
2. The AKG's can be found for $100 or less these days, and the Sony MDR-V6's are still amazing for the price, at meager $70.
3. What I own, my mains were DIY's, designed using WinISD and use Seas Excel drivers. I cross them with Behringer electronic crossovers. the signal is then sent to audiosource monoblocks.
4. Reading the entire review wouldn't do anything for me. The entire review is subjective to what the reviewers ears heard. I just assumed since the review stated in bolod blue letters "Tube Power Amp" that it was a tube amp. And yes, tube amps are old and obsolete. Heat, low output but very high impedence. They are much larger than any solid state amplification item. They require tons of power, most of the time being very dangerous levels of power, as well as the transformers for them are generally large and of course very heavy. So the amp is $5.5k? I guess that means its good huh Price is irrelevant.
5. I meant cans as in headphones in general.
6. "If you are judging your music format through a set of headphones, you are screwing up your source by your listening devices" - even though that doesn't make sense, I'll give you a chance to elaborate.
7. You were all good until you started talking about power and cables affecting sound. Power should never be an issue. If you live in a house, chances are your power is fine. No conditioners or harvesters is needed. Anyone who claims that cables affect the sound, never actually support the claim with any creditable data. The only thing they go by is subjective results. I have never seen anyone who claims cables affect sound, support their theory with graphs or any other sort of data.
Nu-Vista's are basically transistors that were made for the military, the military didn't use them in the end and Musical Fidelity bought all of them, they then made a few things with them
There are only 500 of these amps, and they are generally reckoned to be very good for the price
[quote]6. "If you are judging your music format through a set of headphones, you are screwing up your source by your listening devices" - even though that doesn't make sense, I'll give you a chance to elaborate.[quote]
If you are judging your music format (ie, mp3, cd, ogg) through headphones, you are already losing a lot of the "quality" by not using a decent setup
Ofc you will be able to tell the difference between some 128kb/s mp3 and a 320 VBR one, but i think you will find that you will hear the best comparison with a good setup
However, this is really just personal taste, and with all audio, rather subjective
Those filter things you can plug into the wall sockets make a difference, and there is (IMO) a tiny difference in the sound the amps make, but a lot of audiophiles (who can probably hear the differences better then me) will say it makes a big difference
I cant hear a great difference with audio cables, but video cables make a big difference (even with digital), and you can really see the difference
P.S. be careful to whom you bash tube amps , cables, and anything else audio wise
Some people take this very much to heart (like a lot of the people here take computers to heart) and saying that they are wrong, or stupid, because they listen to older, or different technology, could easily get you in a lot of trouble
1 last note on tube amps, some people like the sound they make, and like we sit here with our 8800GTX's wasting away hundreds of watts of power, why cant they use valves if they think that is better for their audio
That was directed at you too btw
Carry on your argument over PM if you must, you two have managed to take the thread completely off topic
I prefer mp3, but I don't mash it down to horrible levels - variable bitrate, 240-320. It's CD quality, but every mp3 player will still swallow it, unlike OGG (which is better, but still a bit convoluted to use).
And while I post here, does anyone listen to the Café del Mar albums?
EAC has provisions for creating cue sheets with the proper gaps and all that jazz
You can rip to flac and re-record for an identical copy ;)
1. No, not all reviews are subjective. They are subjective to an extent. Some reviewers actually provide creditable data in their reviews.
2. "If you are judging your music format (ie, mp3, cd, ogg) through headphones, you are already losing a lot of the "quality" by not using a decent setup
Ofc you will be able to tell the difference between some 128kb/s mp3 and a 320 VBR one, but i think you will find that you will hear the best comparison with a good setup
However, this is really just personal taste, and with all audio, rather subjective"
So you immediatley assume that all headphone setups are inadequate for music, and that all headphones lose quality, simply because they are headphones?
Yah, no comment...
3. Sure, you claim to hear the difference in sound from cables, but where is your proof? Hmmm? I see no proof yet. Oh that's right, because there isn't any proof.
4. Thank you for advising me not to have an opinion.
for god's sake man, you're done, finished, no more, finito
this is not the place, start another thread if you want to carry on arguing
any further off-topic rambling and I'm going to get angry, and you wouldn't like me when I'm angry.
PM each other if you just need to get the last word, but NOT here
Do you turn into the Hulk? Or the likeness of the Hulk?
Mister Tad had a bad day on the forums. But it all started with a bad day on the links.
I do, and then I get even more angry because its really difficult to operate a mouse and dish out suspensions with giant hands and fingers
seriously though, back on topic
create a "headphones vs speakers" thread if you must
and in the spirit of back-on-topic-ness
does anyone use FLAC or another lossless codec for portable players?
I do.
One problem some might have is lack of support for lossless codecs though.
Everyone should try Rockbox. www.rockbox.org
Definitely will be picking that up when I get around to getting a new player, doesn't run on mine at the moment
is it the Lame bit that really makes the difference - or is it EAC ?
i like the "uber" standard
http://www.chrismyden.com/bestmp3guide.php
its a bit of work, but getting tags and good rips really does help in the future, especially when your library is like 5k songs
Can't notice the quality difference since I'm using such awful headphones for that.
For music it's CD. I prefer to get the album art and such... to me, that's half of the album - and I haven't yet got a DAC for my iMac. Though to be fair it's more 50/50 - m4a if I'm too lazy to stick a CD in, otherwise it's CD.
Did you notice that the NetMD was a bit noisy when seeking? Very anti-climatic in a quiet room (read: classroom).:(
Good luck.
:?
<A88>
Tangent: how much audible difference is there between 320kb/s MP3 and lossless codecs?
L J
Lossless audio on a portable player is a waste of time, 320KB/s is more than enough.
Vinyl for sound quality, CD’s for availability and ease of use. Mp3’s as a “necessary” "evil".
Yea, I've noticed that quite a fair few times, silent while playing though. I don't find the quality too bad but using Sonicstage is enough horror. Shame, because the hardware is a nice bit of kit (like most Sony hardware). The thing has survived Iraw and a fair few operations (Kosovo, etc.) and it still works perfectly, it even looks new.
i also suggest lame, and i did post the link to making "uberstandard" rips earlier
does that mean your sound card is 96khz/24 bit output? or higher?
That's how I started and that is what most stuff plays without hiccups.
I prefer CD (or vinyl if it's an old album) if im near my hifi though.
and CD's in the Hi-Fi
my sound card outputs the music, if its 16/44, then its 16/44 output, its its 24/96 or 24/192, then it sends that out.