Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › AAC vs OGG vs WMA (at lower bitrates)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

AAC vs OGG vs WMA (at lower bitrates)

post #1 of 9
Thread Starter 

a quick comparison of these i did earlier out of boredom. 

 

let me first off say, OGG takes the prize. Followed closely by AAC, unfortunately, WMA is at the bottom of the list, which i will explain why in a minute......

 

 

Firstly, i was doing an ABX comparison in foobar of AAC at 320kbps and kept failing miserably, probability i was guess got up to about 80%, and i can't disagree with that :P so i decided to find out which sounds better at lower bitrates. A common "low bitrate" is 128kbps, so that's what i used. First off i want to start by describing what i heard differently between the two (this was not a blind test, simply a back and forth between the two) what did i hear different between the FLAC file and the OGG file? a very VERY mild loss of what i would describe as "crispness" in the highs. That's it, nothing else, and it was truly mild enough i had to strain to hear it. AAC had basically the same effect, but it was worse and the highs were clearly rolled off after i would guess around 16-17khz.

 

 

Now for the loser and why i picked it as the loser......WMA, i officially hate this codec....

What i noticed with WMA was everything was nice and crispy like the FLAC file, but the stereo image was skewed....what does this mean you say? Well, to put it simply, a certain cymbal continued ending up in the center, and in the flac file it was glaringly obvious this cymbal was NOT in the center, but about 10% to the left of center. It seems to me they made it more "efficient" by averaging "close to center" sounds and placing them into the center image. My guess is this saves bitrate because anything in the center can in theory take up half the data as things off center because the data for the two channels is identical. This is similar to how the "joint stereo" mode in MP3 encoding works, although it does not average out the center image, the center remains intact like it should but takes up half the bitrate allocation. Just my theory. Anyways there you have it. OGG FTW beyersmile.png it is truely almost transparent at 128.


Edited by yepimonfire - 4/25/11 at 9:11pm
post #2 of 9

You should throw MP3 into this comparison too!  As great as OGG is, nothing really supports it. :(

post #3 of 9
Thread Starter 

Sansa does :D

 

sansa supports all kinds of crap. WMA, AAC, OGG, FLAC, MP3, WAV. and probably something else i'm forgetting.


Edited by yepimonfire - 4/26/11 at 12:19pm
post #4 of 9
Quote:
Originally Posted by yepimonfire View Post

Sansa does :D

 

sansa supports all kinds of crap. WMA, AAC, OGG, FLAC, MP3, WAV. and probably something else i'm forgetting.



Sansa does not support AAC unless you Rockbox them.

post #5 of 9
Thread Starter 

the sansa fuze+ does.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achmedisdead View Post





Sansa does not support AAC unless you Rockbox them.



 

post #6 of 9

You cannot compare formats, you are comparing encoders. What encoders did you use?

 

Last I tried, NeroAAC 1.1 beat Vorbis aoTuVb5. This was a long time ago, though, haven't tried it with the latest versions.

post #7 of 9
Thread Starter 

itunes AAC encoder, whoever makes vorbis's encoder, and microsofts WMA encoder.

post #8 of 9
Quote:
Originally Posted by yepimonfire View Post

the sansa fuze+ does.
 



 


Forgot about that one......becuase it has those crappy touch pad controls, I don't even consider it....lol.

 

post #9 of 9

What hardwear supports what is becoming less important as streaming music become more popular. I have tried various streaming sites and prefer the sound off Spotify, which uses Ogg Vorbis.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › AAC vs OGG vs WMA (at lower bitrates)