Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Source Gear › Is OGG VORBIS better?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Is OGG VORBIS better? - Page 3

post #31 of 44
9/9/06 at 11:26am
http://www.vorbis.com/faq/#sound

Vorbis was made to work better at lower bit rates. How it compares at higher bit rates is up to you, since everyone has different levels of discernment. One way of comparison without regard to the ability of the audience is to do a wave form test. Compare the decoding of both formats from exactly the same source in wave format. Compare the waveforms point for point against the original to see how far they deviate. Does anyone know of software that can compare waveforms and give the average deviation with min and max?

IMO if you have a good OGG decoder you should be happy for the most part.
Reply
post #32 of 44
9/9/06 at 12:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by liRetro
One way of comparison without regard to the ability of the audience is to do a wave form test. Compare the decoding of both formats from exactly the same source in wave format. Compare the waveforms point for point against the original to see how far they deviate. Does anyone know of software that can compare waveforms and give the average deviation with min and max?
I don't think that this would be particularly useful. The very point of psycho coders is leaving out stuff that we can't *hear* (and how can you tell by looking at the waveform?), so listening tests will always be necessary. Nonetheless a rule of thumb seems to be that if you have two codecs of which one does better at low bitrates, the other one may well perform better at higher bitrates. Thus if you're limited to less than 128 kbit/s due to space constraints, I'd rather go with Vorbis, but if 160..192 kbit/s is possible I'd settle for MP3 VBR. At 320 kbit, I'm not sure whether layer 3 or layer 2 audio would be better... did anyone ever test that?
Reply
post #33 of 44
9/10/06 at 11:53am
Quote:
All I really learned from ABX is that hearing differences at >150kbps with modern encoders takes either top-notch equipment and a trained ear or pathological music samples to bring out the artifacting.
That is about as succinct and accurate a statement as one is going to find on the subject.

And I would add that this is true regardless of format (just to make the comment relevant to the original thread topic. )

.
Reply
post #34 of 44
6/13/07 at 6:05am
my music library is getting big and i can't stuff all of them into my DAP... fortunately, my DAP can play ogg files and i could convert some files to lower bitrate ogg as my portable music format. i'm also willing for the trade-off of more music files for shorter battery life. i heard that DAP's drain faster when playing ogg. which ogg quality is closest to 128kbps MP3? Q0 (64kbs), Q1 (80kbs) or Q2 (96kbs)? Thanks.
Reply
post #35 of 44
6/13/07 at 8:26am
The way you have it phrased, it's an impossible question to answer. Not all 128kbps MP3s will be the same, as their quality will vary significantly depending on what encoder and settings you used. Moreover, transcoding your files from MP3 to another format will result in further quality loss. In other words, a 96kbps Ogg Vorbis file created ripped and encoded from the CD will sound better than a 96kbps Ogg Vorbis file transcoded from MP3.

If you must transcode, your best bet is to convert the same file to each of the three settings that you are contemplating and then listen to decide for yourself which (if any) has an acceptable quality.
Reply
post #36 of 44
6/13/07 at 12:30pm
I ABXed myself against LAME 320kb/s and it's easy to distiguish from lossless. mp3's have always screwed up soundstage, plus LAME is a bit brighter and less precise than original, FhG is better, Blade has got the best soundstage reproduction but sounds like living dead. Good mp3 320kb/s is better sounding (fuller midrange timbre reproduction) than ogg q7, but q8 and above beats any mp3. BTW ogg Vorbis will always win with mp3 in quality/bitrate ratio comparison. The only drawback of ogg's is their advanced compression algorythm consuming more battery from portable resources than any other codec when played back.
Reply
post #37 of 44
6/13/07 at 12:51pm
Out of curiosity (since the subject arose earlier in the thread), what gear did you use to successfully ABX 320kbps LAME from lossless?
Reply
post #38 of 44
6/13/07 at 2:36pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Febs View Post
Out of curiosity (since the subject arose earlier in the thread), what gear did you use to successfully ABX 320kbps LAME from lossless?
foobar2000 0.8.3 Special
Reply
post #39 of 44
6/13/07 at 2:40pm
Actually, I meant what hardware, not software. Were you using headphones? What type?
Reply
post #40 of 44
6/13/07 at 4:16pm
Stuff ever used (not all mine) - HP nx9600 notebook, iriver ifp-799, Rio Karma, iRiver clix2, DIY headphone amp, Sennheiser HD 595, Sennheiser PX100, Sennheiser CX300. It is enough to have a laptop and CX300 to distinguish LAME mp3 from FLAC, and PX100 is good enough headphone to show that q7 is not that all, and you need q8 (from a good source, i.e. Rio Karma) to fully enjoy richness of sounds.
Reply
post #41 of 44
6/13/07 at 6:42pm
[QUOTE=Honus;2355403]
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwohy233
Windows Media Player rips in wma format.


wna
lame
vorbis
????

.
Not quite true ....

The newer versions of Windows Media Player (I think its from WMP 10 on) have the option to rip to Mp3 also. Don't know if they use a proprietary encoder though.

I've ripped most of my stuff with Lame 3.97 using a variable bitrate targetting 245 kbps (the highest Foobar will go to) and the results are excellent. I did some testing with different bitrates, different encoders, lossless vs. lossy, Mp3 vs. AtracPlus - and Lame 3.97 at 245 is a very good compromise, sound quality is almost indistinguable from lossless and you get a lot of mileage out of your storage-gigabytes. Not to mention batterylife
Reply
post #42 of 44
6/13/07 at 7:03pm
WMP10 and WMP11 use FhG mp3 codec. It's limited to some CBR bitrate's only but it's no problem as FhG has never been a VBR master.
Reply
post #43 of 44
6/13/07 at 7:21pm
Lame 3.97 with preset v3 v2 will give basically "transparent" audio. Nuff said. And you don't have to worry about said player supporting ogg...


Ply
Reply
post #44 of 44
6/13/07 at 7:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by K2Grey View Post
WMA is a codec by Microsoft. It comes in two varieties: regular and lossless. Practically no one other than themselves supports the lossless version (as far as I know). Support of WMA regular is spotty. I don't know much about it's reputed SQ but it is unlikely to be better than ogg. It may also be involved with DRM and all issues that come with that.

LAME is a codec for the mp3 format. Anything which supports mp3 supports LAME, so it is the most supported music format of all (unless you count WAV). Its exact qualities are debatable, but it is generally agreed that it is at least close to transparent at higher bitrates. There have been people claiming that lossless is far better than 320k LAME, but there are just as many people claiming that WAV blows away FLAC, and I'm not sure how many people have successfully done foobar ABX tests for either. I have heard claims of people managing to pull off 320k vs FLAC ABXs with foobar, but IIRC, it was only with certain tracks and the differences were very slight.

Vorbis is a (or the) codec for ogg format. The last time I heard, it was considered to reach transparency at lower bitrates than LAME. Whether highest level OGG sounds better, worse, or exactly the same as LAME is debatable, but I go for "exactly the same". It is not supported on many mp3 players, but iAudio is an exception.
Lol at this statement. But some people are just stupid, point blank. This is why I suggest that EVERYONE try to listen to the diferences between codecs, without knowing what codec they are listening to, aka, abx...


ply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Portable Source Gear
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Source Gear › Is OGG VORBIS better?