[krmathis]

Quote:

Originally Posted by iriverdude /img/forum/go_quote.gif OGG > MP3

Especially when using Ogg FLAC...

Ogg is just a container you know, which can hold both lossless (FLAC) and lossy (Vorbis, Speex, ..) encoded audio.

 

[BigTony]

can you tell the difference between 'Wizzo butter' and a 'Dead Crab'?......

 

[shigzeo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mape00 /img/forum/go_quote.gif mp3 might be good these days, but can you find one listening test where mp3/LAME has beaten ogg/aoTuV? I'd still say ogg (vorbis) > mp3 holds (for all bitrates).

here is a test that proves statistically that the difference is down to human error in 128kbps tests. after that, no one can statistically hear the difference at least in a properly documented and rule-followed test.

here lame actually beats vorbis in classical tests but loses to aac from itunes.

the difference in most tests both higher or lower make little to no difference. most encoders will be strong with a certain music or track and week on another.

i have no problem with people liking ogg, flac, aac, mp3 etc: the problem is the bandying about of unconfirmed rumours as fact all the time. i got out of hydrogenaudio.org as they are dry and headfi is fun: but so is bose compared to ety.

we have so many members and few rules regarding our judgements of audio yet we make 'qualified' judgements on everything all the time. ogg vorbis is a great codec and politically i support it but don't use it. it will beat aac, lame, wma and atrac some of the time and likewise will be beaten by those formats at other times.

finallly, a higher rate test but with results akin to the aformentioned one: the difference this time in favour of vorbis.

all coders make mistake and i think it is a mistake to promote on headfi like we are qualified scientists who not only know how to listen for artifacts but can back up statistically where we can identify differences. hydrogenaudio may be boring but they make sure that there is less conjecture: they are careful to have people put their money where their mouths are.

 

[neoufo51]

I can't believe this thread reached 5 pages without somebody posting some music in both formats for us to compare. Somebody post what they think is a good testing clip in flac and mp3 and I'll give it a listen.

 

[chris_ah1]

TBH I still think atrac is the nicest sounding low bitrate codec on the planet - I remember even LP3 on minidiscs sounding awesome for a portable player. Ten years ago +, 5hours on one MD tape and a player with 120hour battery life that really sounded good. Perhaps I was only ten, but i was satisfied.
Given that those were the days of NO hard disks, NO solid state drives but rather 90min cassettes and 70min CDs.

 

[swanlee]

Since their is a definite mathematical difference between lossy and lossless and I always want to listen to the best sounding sources possible I don't really care I'm going to listen to lossless at all times.

 

[NightWoundsTime]

Quote:

Originally Posted by neoufo51 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I can't believe this thread reached 5 pages without somebody posting some music in both formats for us to compare. Somebody post what they think is a good testing clip in flac and mp3 and I'll give it a listen.

Or you could stop waiting to be spoonfed and DIY?

Just remember you want to do it with something recorded well enough to have details left to be heard. You take some commercial metal or pop and compare and you'll swear that 56kbps MP3's are all you need.

 

[ILikeMusic]

Quote:

Originally Posted by shigzeo /img/forum/go_quote.gif here is a test that proves statistically that the difference is down to human error in 128kbps tests. after that, no one can statistically hear the difference at least in a properly documented and rule-followed test.

Aw, proper documentation and procedures are just smoke and mirrors...

Seriously, it's interesting that the variations (except for the faulty encoder) are pretty much statistically insignificant, meaning that even at 128 kbps the encoders were essentially tied. It would be interesting if a blind comparison to the source was also included... I wonder if there would be a notable difference even in that case...

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by swanlee /img/forum/go_quote.gif Since their is a definite mathematical difference between lossy and lossless and I always want to listen to the best sounding sources possible I don't really care I'm going to listen to lossless at all times.

I agree with this logic, based on my personal preferences. If one can tell the difference between the lowest bitrate and lossless (which I think is fairly obvious relatively speaking), and you don't need the extra space provided by a lossy format, why take the risk that there will be some loss of SQ due to a compressed format? Should you test every one of the musical selections on your MP3 player with all of the different high bit rate formats (under stringent scientific conditions, of course) to see if you can tell the difference between any of them? They should only take a few days, or weeks.

Seriously, if there is a "mathematical difference" between formats, and you can hear a difference between 128 and lossless, and you don't need the space, I'd rather use lossless in favor of even a higher bit rate format, and that way I know that when I hear something I don't like (i.e., I have a SQ issue of some sort), it's not the format, but rather (1) it's a bad recording, (2) I don't have my IEM's seated right, or (3) it's the presentation provided by my IEM, my player, or maybe my outboard amp, or (4) something else. In pursuit of the best sound, I want to eliminate from the beginning all possible causes of potentially reduced SQ.

Now, on the other hand, if you need to compress due to space considerations, then it becomes a different issue. And if space (or quantity) is more important to you than sound quality, then maybe it does make sense to consider whether you really need lossless. To analogize, some folks are satisfied with the sound produced by $100 CD players, and would rather spend the extra $900 on music. Others would rather have fewer albums and a $1000 quality player. To each his own.

 

[shigzeo]

i don't believe that lossless and lossy can be told apart with any satisfying conclusion statistically. everyone should have a platform that is the same and under same circumstances rip, losslessly normalise etc. i have never found but utter bragging on headfi about hearing differences especially when entire forums exist to determine the small if audible differences between a few kbps and they have found 192 to be as transparent as possible.

however, the psychological effects of lossy recording is huge and i completely understand why people would prefer lossless to lossy for that reason.

the tests at hydrogenaudio or the tests they perform are all blind. they have so many rules to rule out the people who come in and lead all the newbies to believe suddenly that one encoder or format is far superior or that .... well to sort of keep away from headfi logic.

 

[plonter]

i think that we all can reach the logical conclusion that if one have alot of storage space, why mind using the best possible format?? if you dont have the space than it's a different story, go for lossy then, but otherwise...why compromise? it doesn't cost money!
IMO, it really doesn't matter if one can hear the difference or not, the importance is that there IS a difference.

 

[Earwax]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS /img/forum/go_quote.gif ...and you don't need the extra space provided by a lossy format, why take the risk that there will be some loss of SQ due to a compressed format?

Why? Because we're talking portable here...

At least until there are small size 64 or 128 gig flash players available, I chose to use what capacity I carry around to store more albums instead of higher bitrate albums.

The tiny Sansa clip has made a difference in when and where I listen to music. I have one stashed in a pocket with a pair of earbuds ALL THE TIME now. It's thin enough I don't notice carrying it. It's cheap enough I'm not paranoid about running it through the wash or loosing it. It sounds good enough that I don't feel I'm missing out when listening to it. A hard drive player does not give me the same experience.

Ogg vorbis q5 is about one quarter the size of flac encoding. I sat down with the ABX application in Foobar and found that already with q4 (about 128kbs) I can't reliably ABX the difference between vorbis and flac. So I chose to encode with q5 (about 160kbs) for a bit of a safety margin.

I used to think I needed 256 to 320 kbs for "transparency". I was shocked when I actually tried to ABX those rates and found the differences I thought I was hearing vanished when put to an objective test. I was shocked again when I found out how good 128 VBR is these days. They really have made significant improvements in encoding in the last 4 or 5 years.

I'm not arguing against lossless for archiving a collection or for home listening, I fully understand why people feel it's the way to go in that situation. But this thread is about portable use. And portables are still compromised in size compared to home systems.

If I can't hear the difference, why shouldn't I choose to carry around 12 albums in the same space 3 lossless ones would require?

[ And to everyone who thinks they can easily hear the difference, I invite you to a session in Foobar ABX for a reality check ]

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by shigzeo /img/forum/go_quote.gif the tests at hydrogenaudio or the tests they perform are all blind. they have so many rules to rule out the people who come in and lead all the newbies to believe suddenly that one encoder or format is far superior or that .... well to sort of keep away from headfi logic.

Discussions of DBT's are prohibited, except on the Sound Science forum. Therefore, discussions of the implications of such tests, and the flaws in such tests, should take place in that other subforum.

If you don't like "headfi logic," why don't you spend your time elsewhere.

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Earwax /img/forum/go_quote.gif Why? Because we're talking portable here... At least until there are small size 64 or 128 gig flash players available, I chose to use what capacity I carry around to store more albums instead of higher bitrate albums. The tiny Sansa clip has made a difference in when and where I listen to music. I have one stashed in a pocket with a pair of earbuds ALL THE TIME now. It's thin enough I don't notice carrying it. It's cheap enough I'm not paranoid about running it through the wash or loosing it. It sounds good enough that I don't feel I'm missing out when listening to it. A hard drive player does not give me the same experience. Ogg vorbis q5 is about one quarter the size of flac encoding. I sat down with the ABX application in Foobar and found that already with q4 (about 128kbs) I can't reliably ABX the difference between vorbis and flac. So I chose to encode with q5 (about 160kbs) for a bit of a safety margin. I used to think I needed 256 to 320 kbs for "transparency". I was shocked when I actually tried to ABX those rates and found the differences I thought I was hearing vanished when put to an objective test. I was shocked again when I found out how good 128 VBR is these days. They really have made significant improvements in encoding in the last 4 or 5 years. I'm not arguing against lossless for archiving a collection or for home listening, I fully understand why people feel it's the way to go in that situation. But this thread is about portable use. And portables are still compromised in size compared to home systems. If I can't hear the difference, why shouldn't I choose to carry around 12 albums in the same space 3 lossless ones would require? [ And to everyone who thinks they can easily hear the difference, I invite you to a session in Foobar ABX for a reality check ]

I said "IF" you don't need the space. My thread is clear on that. Not everyone needs extra space on a portable, especially given the size of some portables today. And I made it clear that "you" or anyone else can choose to do what they want or what works for them. Did you even read what I wrote?

And, again, ABX tests and DBT's are permitted to be discussed on the Sound Science forum only, for good reasons.

 

[ILikeMusic]

Quote:

Discussions of DBT's are prohibited, except on the Sound Science forum.

But fortunately for us groundless, unsubstantiated claims are allowed anywhere.

Quote:

i think that we all can reach the logical conclusion that if one have alot of storage space, why mind using the best possible format?? if you dont have the space than it's a different story, go for lossy then, but otherwise...why compromise? it doesn't cost money! IMO, it really doesn't matter if one can hear the difference or not, the importance is that there IS a difference.

If you can't hear a difference then there is no difference that matters. By that logic then we should all be using 24-bit 192 kHz files regardless of whether the difference is even remotely audible. Get out the 250gb portables!

Of course if space is unlimited and free then it doesn't matter, but in the real world space isn't unlimited and free. Most folks with a large library would need one of the relatively few large-capacity hard drive players in order to have enough space for lossless files. Why limit yourself to a small subset of players (or give up the benefits of flash memory) if you can't hear a difference? For the sole reason that a technical but otherwise inaudible difference exists? That seems very illogical to me. But yes, if you do have the space, knock yourself out... but since that doesn't apply to most users I don't think it's a very sound argument in general.

.