Efficient lossy formats (again): Ogg vs AAC
Jul 27, 2010 at 7:40 PM Thread Starter Post #1 of 4

Fallingwater

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Jul 31, 2006
Posts
420
Likes
10
I've bought a new smartphone (a Nokia 5230, for the record), and in the interest of reducing the amount of clutter I cart around in my pockets I've decided to get a 16GB microSD card for it and use it as my main music player. My intention is to use low-bitrate files (Ogg quality 1 or equivalent) transcoded from my quite large collection of mp3s; yes, I know transcoding comes with some quality loss, but I'm OK with it considering the amount of space it'll let me save on the card (which also has to store GPS maps and pictures, among other things).
 
The big question is: should I transcode them to Ogg Vorbis, or AAC?
 
I've googled for listening tests, but I can't find tests performed in recent times - the most recent one I've found is five years old, and things are bound to have changed since then. At the very least, the encoders have surely been upgraded.
 
The phone natively supports AAC files, and the music player it comes with is fairly usable. In contrast, transcoding to Ogg would force me to install a third-party player, and I've already tried a few with disappointing results. Still, if low-bitrate Ogg files are still of considerably better quality than low-bitrate AACs, I'll just do that anyway (hopefully there's at least ONE player out there with a decent interface and that doesn't crash on startup).
 
Thanks :)
 
Aug 9, 2010 at 9:37 AM Post #3 of 4
You'll have to do your own listening test.  Only you can decide what difference is audible, and what difference you can tolerate.  The test in your link, and just about all published results, are LOSSLESS > lossy; not lossy > lossy
It only takes minutes to convert a few songs, listen, & compare.  If you don't like the results, just delete the files and try something else.  By the way, the 5230 supports AAC-HE,  so you should try that for low bitrates. 
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top