Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Computer Audio › Best Lossy audio codec ? wma or ogg
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Best Lossy audio codec ? wma or ogg

post #1 of 20
5/29/09 at 3:52pm
Thread Starter 
Which one is better ?
Reply
post #2 of 20
5/29/09 at 4:15pm
I actually read somewhere that ogg is supposed to be better than mp3 because it takes less space for the same quality ...or something...
but i don't know about wma. ogg is pretty stable though, and i heard of a lot of people starting to use it.
you can read more on oggvorbis if you want, just google it.
Reply
post #3 of 20
5/29/09 at 4:20pm
I've tested MP3 & OGG, prefer latter. Using 192kps OGG on portable system, if that were MP3 I'd just delete them as sound quality is still pretty bad.
Reply
post #4 of 20
5/29/09 at 5:52pm
if you're asking about sound quality, i would rate musepack (mpc) 1st and ogg 2nd.
Reply
post #5 of 20
5/29/09 at 6:04pm
Depends what you mean with "best".
If software/hardware support are taken into consideration then MP3 win hands down. For pure sound quality then probably close call between AAC, Ogg Vorbis and MusePack.
Reply
post #6 of 20
5/29/09 at 6:58pm
i ripped all of my cd's to ogg and wav and to my ear there is absolutely NO difference
Reply
post #7 of 20
5/29/09 at 8:00pm
the latest version of nero aac is awesome! use vbr preset .65(around 250kbps) and youre practically set. I cant hear the difference between this and lossless so far and even 320 mp3s are a little soft for me compared to lossless.
Reply
post #8 of 20
5/29/09 at 8:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by donunus View Post
the latest version of nero aac is awesome! use vbr preset .65(around 250kbps) and youre practically set. I cant hear the difference between this and lossless so far and even 320 mp3s are a little soft for me compared to lossless.
Indeed.. I'm at 160 kbps AAC vbr and can't hear the difference.
Reply
post #9 of 20
5/29/09 at 9:14pm
None will ever be CD quality, though I thought Ogg q6 was CD quality for a long time before getting better equipment. And still, 80% of the time, the differences are near-inaudible.

Musepack is also extremely good, but tends to have worse player support than Ogg.

wma - I refuse to even look into this, as it's closed-source and - I'm guessing - not Linux friendly at all.

~Phewl.
Reply
post #10 of 20
5/30/09 at 5:47am
Oh hey, something i sort of know about.
You can get an unofficial oggenc from HAF (google) that sounds ~~lossless at about 160kbps.
^ currently the best available.
Then you have mp3 blade (blade enc)...
then you have normal ogg...
then you have wma...
then you have standard mp3 [lameenc] (about 216 kbps).

You'll probably get the most support from a LAME mp3...
enjoy.
Reply
post #11 of 20
5/30/09 at 12:29pm
Thread Starter 
Thanks for the answers,

I ripped my flac albums to ogg quality 9
Reply
post #12 of 20
5/30/09 at 12:32pm
I also think AAC is the best lossy codec available atm
Reply
post #13 of 20
5/30/09 at 2:56pm
^ I stick to AAC as well, for those few lossy files I need.
Since its compatible with all the software/hardware I use, and provide pretty good sound quality. Aka -> "Best" (for my use).
Reply
post #14 of 20
5/30/09 at 3:11pm
was gonna say MPC as well, at least -insane or -braindead (which i believe is -7 and -8) but that was quite a while ago, before i made the switch to lossless.
Reply
post #15 of 20
5/30/09 at 3:25pm
Thread Starter 
Unfortunately my cowon s9 does not support AAC
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Computer Audio
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Computer Audio › Best Lossy audio codec ? wma or ogg