Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Members' Lounge (General Discussion) › 320kbs MP3 (encoded with LAME) vs. ogg-vorbis, quality 8.9/10
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

320kbs MP3 (encoded with LAME) vs. ogg-vorbis, quality 8.9/10

post #1 of 17
Thread Starter 
Their bitrate is about the same. Which one, do you think, sounds better?
post #2 of 17

Re: 320kbs MP3 (encoded with LAME) vs. ogg-vorbis, quality 8.9/10

Quote:
Originally posted by apropos
Their bitrate is about the same. Which one, do you think, sounds better?
As the bitrate gets higher, the differences between encoding methods becomes smaller. But for more details, go look on Hydrogen Audio.
post #3 of 17

Re: 320kbs MP3 (encoded with LAME) vs. ogg-vorbis, quality 8.9/10

Quote:
Originally posted by apropos
Their bitrate is about the same. Which one, do you think, sounds better?
Hey, I don't even hear a difference between a -q 2 (96 kbps) encoded Ogg file and --alt-preset insane (320 kbps) Lame mp3 file using my crappy headphones.
post #4 of 17
First of all, If you do check out HA, don't ask questions like this.

Now, to attempt to answer your question.

Depending on the type of audio you are encoding, and if you have REALLY GOOD hearing, not to mention good equipment, then if I had to bet, I'd say that the LAME would have a higher likelyhood of artifacts.

I say this because Vorbis is tuned for lowish bitrates, not high ones. For that you would need to use GTB2, but if you are going for transparency at insanely high bitrates, why are you using Ogg at all, or any lossy encoder for that matter? Secondly, LAME is not meant to be used at CBR settings. I'm sure 99% of all music you encode will be transparent at 320CBR, but you are just wasting bytes by not using one of the heavily tested and perfected presets.

In the end, it all depends on what you intend for the encoded file.



Also, asking what sounds "better" is kind of dumb (no offense, I'm saying the question is dumb, not you). It is better to ask which produces a more accurate representation of the original wav file. Some of the things that sound "better" are actually just artifacts that happen to sound good to the listener.
post #5 of 17

Re: Re: 320kbs MP3 (encoded with LAME) vs. ogg-vorbis, quality 8.9/10

Quote:
Originally posted by Thrasher
Hey, I don't even hear a difference between a -q 2 (96 kbps) encoded Ogg file and --alt-preset insane (320 kbps) Lame mp3 file using my crappy headphones.
A lot of people couldn't even on decent headphones. Ogg is pretty good at low bitrates.
post #6 of 17
Sorry, Completely OT:
Penvzila2, is your avatar pictures from absurd.org? Strange site.
post #7 of 17
I was always under the impression Musepack was superior to both?
post #8 of 17
Quote:
Originally posted by pbirkett
I was always under the impression Musepack was superior to both?
Probably yes (everyone has to try for himself though), but only at higher bitrates (like from 160<).
post #9 of 17
Impressions are like armpits.
post #10 of 17
Quote:
Originally posted by penvzila2
I'd say that the LAME would have a higher likelyhood of artifacts.
You meant lower likelihood, right?
post #11 of 17
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by penvzila2
but if you are going for transparency at insanely high bitrates, why are you using Ogg at all, or any lossy encoder for that matter? Secondly, LAME is not meant to be used at CBR settings. I'm sure 99% of all music you encode will be transparent at 320CBR, but you are just wasting bytes by not using one of the heavily tested and perfected presets.

Also, asking what sounds "better" is kind of dumb (no offense, I'm saying the question is dumb, not you). It is better to ask which produces a more accurate representation of the original wav file. Some of the things that sound "better" are actually just artifacts that happen to sound good to the listener.
I am compressing large WAVs. Lossless codecs only shrink them to half of the original size. LAME shrinks them to about 1/5 th of the original size.

I AM using LAME's native preset: alt -- preset insane.

Yes, you paraphrased my question correctly. If I were to ask it the way you suggested, would it still be inappropriate for me to post it at HA? If so, why?

thanks,
a.
post #12 of 17
mreep
post #13 of 17
Quote:
Originally posted by apropos
I am compressing large WAVs. Lossless codecs only shrink them to half of the original size. LAME shrinks them to about 1/5 th of the original size.

I AM using LAME's native preset: alt -- preset insane.

Yes, you paraphrased my question correctly. If I were to ask it the way you suggested, would it still be inappropriate for me to post it at HA? If so, why?

thanks,
a.
Try standard and see if you can abx a lot of differences. If not, use that. If I were to advise someone personally, I'd say stick to MP3 unless you've got philosophical issues with it, or are using the compressed files to make money and don't want to pay a license fee. MP3 is the standard, MP4/AAC is next, and they are both very, very good. AAC especially is transparent at surprisingly low bitrates.

What I meant about not posting it at HA is that they don't tend to appreciate 1)claimes w/o abx results and 2)questions that can be answered by reading the forums


EDIT: I just remembered something. I think that LAME aps insane actually IS 320CBR. My stupid mistake.
post #14 of 17
BTW lame aps insane is damn near transparent. Most people say standard is transparent, including me, but insane can be necessary sometimes. If space isn't a mega option, don't go reencoding your whole collection.
post #15 of 17
Thread Starter 

update

Actually, on HA I found this thread:

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/index.p...838&hl=you+can't+hear

This way one can tell exactly the quality and quantity of the audio information thrown out by a lossy codec.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Members' Lounge (General Discussion) › 320kbs MP3 (encoded with LAME) vs. ogg-vorbis, quality 8.9/10