Best and most compressed audio format?

Discussion in 'Technology Talk' started by pixthor, Aug 6, 2009.

  1. pixthor

    pixthor A ghost.

    Well, i've been wanting to switch from using MP3 to something else. Is there any audio codec that I can use. That is lossless, and is compressed the most? I'm trying to save some more room on my sansa fuze. I have a 4GB one. I only have about 1GB left.
  2. CryoScales

    CryoScales Devourer of Worlds

    Are you sure your player could take more compressed formats?

    I would imagine since MP3 loses some of it's quality I think that a more compressed format would do the same
  3. Torinir

    Torinir Unreal!

    You might try Ogg Vorbis format, although you might still experience quality loss.
  4. Duality Jack

    Duality Jack Feeling Loki with it.

    you can kick mp3 files top low as 64kps which is as compressed as you can get and understand it. find yourself a converter such as Goldwave. a fair warning I personally thing anything below 256 kps sounds like shit. ( 130~(give or take) is standard)
  5. CerbrusNL

    CerbrusNL I am legion, for we are many.

    Best / Most compressed

    Pick 1 of the 2, or compromise. Mostly, The more compression, the lesser the quality.
  6. pixthor

    pixthor A ghost.

    Ok, I'll try that. Thanks.
  7. ToeClaws

    ToeClaws PEBKAC exterminator

    ogg is about the same quality as MP3 from my experiences. MP3 is a good format if the compression for the 5000Hz and up frequencies is done at a 192Kbps rate or higher. What you can do to save room though is find an app. that allows for recording high-end variable bit rate MP3s. It will allow a bit rate of up to 224Kbps for the ranges that require it, and otherwise drops down as low as 64Kbps for the lower sound frequencies that don't need the bit rate detail.
  8. pixthor

    pixthor A ghost.

    Where can I find said app?
  9. Runefox

    Runefox Kitsune of the PC Master Race

    AACPlusv2 is one of the better codecs out there for low-bitrate, but I'm not sure your player can support it - However, if it can, it can achieve mostly-listenable (around or better-sounding than 64kbps MP3) quality at around 24kbps if it supports v2, or 48kbps if it only supports v1.

    Aside from that, Ogg Vorbis can usually sound as good as high-end LAME MP3 at usually a quality step down from the same bitrate as MP3 (96kbps Ogg roughly equals 128kbps MP3). I usually find that 64kbps Ogg Vorbis sounds pretty good; Also, WMA 64kbps (2-pass) sounds very good, too.
  10. Carenath

    Carenath Cynical Dragon

    Lossless - FLAC

    Lossy, good quality and reasonably good compression: Variable Bit-Rate AAC or WMA. The former is supported on just about anything that plays MP3, the latter is less-so.

    FLAC is loss-less so you get the highest quality, AAC and WMA are lossy, so some information is lost, and if you transcode from MP3 to one of those, you will lose some quality which may or may not be noticable to you depending on your sound system and yourself really. Some people notice quality loss in even good encoded MP3s while others dont.
  11. Runefox

    Runefox Kitsune of the PC Master Race

    FLAC is great - It's what I use to keep most of my music on my hard drive. However, the files aren't terribly small - In fact, depending on the file, sometimes not much smaller than the raw WAVE file. Though usually it's a lot better than that.
  12. pixthor

    pixthor A ghost.

    I might try FLAC. I'll try it out and see how it goes.
  13. Shino

    Shino Now with more Writer's Block!

    I use WMA as my format of choice because it's a good balance of quality and file size vs MP3 and all of my devices (even my car) support WMA. Also, WMA does have a mathmatically lossless format, but it's ~490Kbps.

    Not to sound like a Microsoft advertisment, but it's a great format.
  14. Runefox

    Runefox Kitsune of the PC Master Race

    I'd like to note that any lossless codec is going to get around the same kind of filesize. Monkey's Audio (my former favourite), FLAC, The True Audio (TTA), Shorten, Wavepack, etc, should all yield around the same kind of results. As far as quality goes, lossless is lossless - It'll be the same quality as the file you feed it. If you convert a low-quality MP3 to FLAC, you won't hear any improvement, but if you rip a CD directly to FLAC, you'll hear it exactly as the CD would sound, except it doesn't take up nearly as much space.

    Also, when compressing to a lossy format like MP3, WMA, Ogg, AAC, etc, using a high-quality source is preferable. If you have a FLAC that was ripped from a CD, or if you rip directly to the format, you'll get better audio quality than if you transcode from MP3 to Ogg, for example. The reason behind this is lossy formats throw away a certain portion of the audio information (permanently) and attempt to recreate it as faithfully as possible mathematically. With MP3 and similar formats, this information can be difficult if not impossible to replace, depending on the quality level, which is why you hear artifacts (like shimmering cymbals and strange drum noise) when the bitrate is low. Taking such a file and feeding it through another encoder basically takes the file as you hear it, with artifacts and all, and then throws away yet more information, along with trying to reproduce the artifacts already created (which can mean the file size can also be larger than it would be with the original since efficiency goes down the tubes this way).

    Always, always, always keep your CD or a FLAC/etc lossless rip on hand for when you need to compress something to MP3/etc. Otherwise, you'll end up with inferior-quality files that may actually be larger than they would be otherwise.
    Last edited: Aug 6, 2009
  15. hollowx64

    hollowx64 New Member

    you can try to compress with mp3 codec at the following configuration

    48000hz, double channel (stereo), constant bit rate at 192kbps, surely you'll have good results
  16. Kivaari

    Kivaari Meow.

    If you have a Sansa Fuze, you can get a MicroSD card. I have a 4gb Fuze, with a 8gb card, so I have 12GB. They are getting pretty cheap too.
  17. Runefox

    Runefox Kitsune of the PC Master Race

    Well, you'll get decent ("DVD-quality") results with that, but you'll also surely get larger files than 44100Hz/Dual Channel(or Joint Stereo) at 128kbps with not much better quality (especially if the original sample frequency was below 48000Hz; Keeping the sample frequency at the same as the input file is important when getting the best quality out of an MP3, unless it absolutely must be changed for size reasons (like 96000Hz files, which are very rare).
  18. Phreekkeki

    Phreekkeki New Member

    Converting audio to mp3 files is a good way for mp3 can be compatible with most player.
    But one thing need to say, mp3 is a compressed and lossy audio codec and it's hardly to keep the original quality with any program. You can only keep the videos to the most extent.
  19. GreenZone

    GreenZone Well-Known Member

    you're new so i should probably say digging up old threads particularly ones almost a decade old aint a good idea
    PlusThirtyOne likes this.

Share This Page