Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › formats,bitrates,and battery consumption
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

formats,bitrates,and battery consumption - Page 2

post #16 of 23
Thread Starter 
I am sorry if this is the wrong forum for this,but if we already gone so far I may as well continue this thread.
anyway,I have experimented with ogg vorbis q10 (as you can read in my previous post) and the results were excellent. it takes considerably less battery from my clip+ and it sounds very good. I can also stuff many albums inside my 8G player.
having read that q10 is really an overkill and just a waste of space and battery,I have decided to convert my flac library again to ogg but q9 this time. hoping that it will increase the battery life span even more and still retain a good sound.
ogg q9 is around 320kbs vbr...scientifically,should it be better than mp3 320?
I read that ogg will sound better than mp3 when both are in the same bitrate,so by that formula,a 320 ogg will sound noticably better than 320 mp3? I think that vorbis q9 may be my sweet spot between lossy and lossless.
post #17 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by plonter View Post
I read that ogg will sound better than mp3 when both are in the same bitrate,so by that formula,a 320 ogg will sound noticably better than 320 mp3? I think that vorbis q9 may be my sweet spot between lossy and lossless.
Ogg @ -q6 is better than 320k mp3 scientifically.
post #18 of 23
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by chinesekiwi View Post
Ogg @ -q6 is better than 320k mp3 scientifically.
thanks,I didn't know there such a big gap between ogg and mp3...GO OGG!
maybe I should have went with Q8 like you chinesekiwi...well,.nevermind i will give it a chance.

EDIT: just for the hack of it..if mp3 would has higher bitrates what was the equivalent to ogg Q9 (320kbs)?
post #19 of 23
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by chinesekiwi View Post
Ogg @ -q6 is better than 320k mp3 scientifically.
btw,i would like to see a link to a page that explains/proves that if you have one. I would just like to see it in my own eyes. I found some links on the net and also in head fi but not to this specific comparison (mp3 320 and ogg q6)
post #20 of 23
Quote:
ogg q9 is around 320kbs vbr...scientifically,should it be better than mp3 320?
I read that ogg will sound better than mp3 when both are in the same bitrate,so by that formula,a 320 ogg will sound noticably better than 320 mp3? I think that vorbis q9 may be my sweet spot between lossy and lossless.
Uh... No. Ogg is just freeware, and it's gaining popularity so that's about its only advantage. Between 320 ogg, mp3, and flac, all three will sound the same. If it's 'scientifically better,' (you have to say in what category), then maybe in compression speed? mp3 is definitely better battery life wise in most cases these days, it seems (although that's only because of lack of real support for ogg).

I don't know why you'd think at such high bitrates there would be a quality difference. Different formats succeed differently at various bitrates... Sometimes failing in the 128 kb/s category, but showing moderate success in the 60 kb/s range. But above 192 kb/s.... They're all so bloated it isn't going to matter at all. Kiwi, please show me the 'science' (ie the study) that suggests this ogg q-6 is better than mp3 320... apart from you know, being a smaller file obviously.
post #21 of 23
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chef View Post
Uh... No. Ogg is just freeware, and it's gaining popularity so that's about its only advantage. Between 320 ogg, mp3, and flac, all three will sound the same. If it's 'scientifically better,' (you have to say in what category), then maybe in compression speed? mp3 is definitely better battery life wise in most cases these days, it seems (although that's only because of lack of real support for ogg).

I don't know why you'd think at such high bitrates there would be a quality difference. Different formats succeed differently at various bitrates... Sometimes failing in the 128 kb/s category, but showing moderate success in the 60 kb/s range. But above 192 kb/s.... They're all so bloated it isn't going to matter at all. Kiwi, please show me the 'science' (ie the study) that suggests this ogg q-6 is better than mp3 320... apart from you know, being a smaller file obviously.
thank you for your input chef. I read a lot about ogg vorbis lately and everywhere I read on the net says that ogg supposed to be better than mp3 giving they both have the same bitrate, that what makes ogg a better choice,the possibility to have smaller files (and ofcourse smaller bitrate) but with the same quality. so I cunclude from that,that ogg in the same bitrate as mp3 would yield better results sound wise.
but i would also like to see a specific study/proof about ogg q6 and mp3 320.
I want to know from what quality level exactly does the ogg becomes transparent enough because I currently use Q9.
post #22 of 23
Thread Starter 
nevermind...posted in the portable source gear forum.
post #23 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chef View Post
They're all so bloated it isn't going to matter at all. Kiwi, please show me the 'science' (ie the study) that suggests this ogg q-6 is better than mp3 320... apart from you know, being a smaller file obviously.
Spectrograms of Oasis' 'Roll With It' LAME 3.98.4 VBR -V0 mp3 vs. AoTuV 5.7 Ogg Vorbis @-q6. Viewed using the freeware spectrogram analyser Spectro. The -q6 Vorbis example is converted to WAV to work with Spectro, otherwise it is 100% representative of the Ogg Vorbis -q6 sample. I've used a GIF to illustrate the point more easily.
I chose this song as this song is brickwalled due to the Loudness War thus good for comparing the loss of data via lossy formats. All pictures were saved in .PNG format to ensure picture quality and integrity (.PNG = lossless).



and the original FLAC to compare:



Not only does Ogg Vorbis at -q6 represent more data, it represents it more accurately. A good clear example is the two pairs on red lines near the middle of the spectrogram clearly showing in the Vorbis sample but not the mp3 sample.

Also to note from Spectrogram Reading - What are spectrograms? to read spectrograms properly.

Quote:
....the horizontal axis shows positive time toward the right, and the colors represent the most important acoustic peaks for a given time frame, with red representing the highest energies, then in decreasing order of importance, orange, yellow, green, cyan, blue... ....and white areas [Black in Spectro] below a threshold decibel level.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › formats,bitrates,and battery consumption