re-encode question...
Nov 24, 2003 at 11:40 PM Post #16 of 24

matheis

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Aug 1, 2003
Posts
182
Likes
0
Quote:

Originally posted by blessingx
It's interesting to see differences based on complexity, etc. I really do think r3mix can still has some uses, though it's possible -apn will finally replace it. In the ~128-160 range Ogg (q4-5) and AAC (QT), if possible, should really be looked at also. Matheis, any of your iRivers support the former?


well, i was going to start re-encoding at ogg q4 but stopped because who knows when it'll be out. for my imp550, i don't really care to have lower quality files and use --aps. for the ifp390 i'm snagging from dlp, i'd like to pare down the bitrate but still maintain listenability. the imp550 is supposed to get ogg support by the end of dec (priority #1 now that the ifp5xx support ogg). not sure about the ifp3xx series ogg support, though. i think it's 4th priority now. although, once they support ogg with one player, it can't be that hard to implement support for the others. perhaps i should just start re-encoding @ q4 ogg in anticipation and hope ogg support happens soon! no aac support in the works, though.

along the ogg line of thought, would it be better to use the standard ogg encoder in cdex or oggdrop? i know oggdrop is supposed to be better tuned (although it provides slightly higher bitrates than standard ogg encoder) but i'm not sure if it's tuned at q4. i don't think it is, as the bitrate for my cdex ogg encoder @ q4 is 128kbps, same as oggdrop, while q5 and q6 have higher bitrates in oggdrop. any ideas?

EDITwhat about wma pro? iriver supports wma files. would that make it support wma pro, as well? that looks like a worthwhile route to pursue.

later
nikolaus
 
Nov 24, 2003 at 11:49 PM Post #17 of 24

blessingx

HeadFest '07 Graphic Designer
Supplier of fine logos! His visions of Head-Fi
Joined
Mar 27, 2003
Posts
13,179
Likes
25
I'm on OSX, so my Ogg choices are a little different (though OggDrog is one of them). I'm sure there has to be some iHP-100/120 users out there that have experimented.

As always search Hydrogen, for possible answers. Also just keep an eye out for possible battery life impact by switching to Ogg.
 
Nov 25, 2003 at 12:11 AM Post #19 of 24

blessingx

HeadFest '07 Graphic Designer
Supplier of fine logos! His visions of Head-Fi
Joined
Mar 27, 2003
Posts
13,179
Likes
25
No portables out support WMAPro that I know of. Next year is the rumored "explosion" of WM9Pro players (which I assume have special hardware requirements). We'll see as WMA never really took off to begin with and now Ogg and AAC have to be dealt with.
 
Nov 25, 2003 at 12:26 AM Post #20 of 24

matheis

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Aug 1, 2003
Posts
182
Likes
0
looks like wma pro is out. down to --ap 128 and q4 ogg. right now it'll be better to re-encode highly listened-to albums to --ap128 and start re-encoding albums i anticipate wanting on the flash player in q4 ogg for later on when iriver implements ogg support for the ifp3xx series.
later
nikolaus
 
Nov 25, 2003 at 12:38 AM Post #21 of 24

blessingx

HeadFest '07 Graphic Designer
Supplier of fine logos! His visions of Head-Fi
Joined
Mar 27, 2003
Posts
13,179
Likes
25
If you're ending up with ap 128, I'd at least test WMA 96 kbps to see if it's the same to you or WMA 128 kbps in the event you find it superior. After all this is the area where WMA is at least decent. Also FhG ABR 128 (in a variety of progs like MusicMatch and iTunes). Certainly below that FhG often beats LAME. I encode audiobooks always in FhG for instance. If you're handling a lot of music it worth a small experiment. LAME may beat FhG, but is it enough to justify the encoding time difference?
 
Nov 25, 2003 at 1:22 AM Post #22 of 24

matheis

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Aug 1, 2003
Posts
182
Likes
0
Quote:

Originally posted by blessingx
If you're ending up with ap 128, I'd at least test WMA 96 kbps to see if it's the same to you or WMA 128 kbps in the event you find it superior. After all this is the area where WMA is at least decent. Also FhG ABR 128 (in a variety of progs like MusicMatch and iTunes). Certainly below that FhG often beats LAME. I encode audiobooks always in FhG for instance. If you're handling a lot of music it worth a small experiment. LAME may beat FhG, but is it enough to justify the encoding time difference?


what's a good encoder for wma? seems wma9 128kbps vbr double pass is kicked around hydrogen as a reasonable encoding option for portables. for some reason, i can't search hydrogen audio at home, only at work
rolleyes.gif
who knows...
anyway, i'll try wma and see if it's ok. if 128kbps wma beats --ap 128, i might as well give it a try!
later
nikolaus
 
Nov 25, 2003 at 2:20 AM Post #23 of 24

blessingx

HeadFest '07 Graphic Designer
Supplier of fine logos! His visions of Head-Fi
Joined
Mar 27, 2003
Posts
13,179
Likes
25
Best WMA encoder I know is WMP. Best being relative.
wink.gif


I extremely rarely recommend WMA, but it may be right for your case. WMAPro Lossless is also interesting, though it has to compete against FLAC and Monkeys.
 
Nov 25, 2003 at 3:03 AM Post #24 of 24

matheis

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Aug 1, 2003
Posts
182
Likes
0
blessingx
thanks. i've encoded the same file as --aps and re-encoded to --ap 160, --ap144, and --ap 128, 96kbps wma, and 128kbps wma. i also encoded to the same bitrate wma directly from the cd. now, i need to burn them onto a cdrw and see how they stack up on my imp550, figuring it'll give me a pretty good idea how they'll perform on the ifp390. i think i'll use my shure e2 and sony ex71 for a more and less accurate interpretation.
later
nikolaus
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top