[master83]

Any opinions?

 

[blessingx]

Anything more specific you want to ask?

Give them both a shot. For the likely quality most here would want for music (and dropping any other considerations like compatibility and trading) Ogg will usually win. There are bit ranges where MP3 (especially FhG at the low end) still comes out on top, and each has characteristics you may prefer over the other, but Ogg should probably be your default. You'll have a player that supports it and those Etys which require higher quality. Try quality 6 and move up if necessary.

EDIT: Also check out Hydrogen, the Head-Fi of the compression world.

 

[master83]

ok

I'll try both encoding methods when I get my IHP-120. I'll experiment with different bitrates for them both, and ultimately decide which one I like and stick with it.

But is it necessary to encode OGG files at 500 kbits? Is there that big a difference down to say 320 kbits? just want to get as much music on my player as possible, with a quality that's "hearable" in terms of not beeing PERFECT (cause then I'd be using WAV) but as good as possible within a space-limit. Which one of MP3/OGG would sound best at 192kbits? I think 192 kbits mp3 sound great if encoded properly, but wonder if OGG would be better cause it's a "new" format and all..

And for those with Ihp's: do you use MP3 or OGG?

tnx,

 

[MirandaX]

Quote:

Originally posted by master83 But is it necessary to encode OGG files at 500 kbits?

No, definitely not. If you're going up to 500 kbits/sec, you might as well use a lossless format (most average around 500 kbits/sec).

 

[pbirkett]

Quote:

Originally posted by MirandaX No, definitely not. If you're going up to 500 kbits/sec, you might as well use a lossless format (most average around 500 kbits/sec).

Really? I've found when I have done lossless, they are normally at LEAST 800 kbits/sec...

 

[blessingx]

Remember you can always encode now, test and see which you prefer before you get your player. And the "as good as possible within a space-limit" ratio really is a personal thing. MP3's sweet spot does seem around 192 (ABR or LAME presets), and Ogg and AAC seem right below that (~ 128-160/quality 5), but for a decent player and great phones you'll likely want more. Why spend the money on Etys and not let them sing? Why not work in reverse? Can you afford the space for quality 8/~ 256 kbps? Quality 7/~ 224 kbps? Quality 6/~ 192 kbps?

Team Compassionate Compression!

 

[blessingx]

Just found this interesting site on Ogg v. LAME. A couple years old, but...

 

[evil-zen]

if you are looking for the best in sound quality with no need for compatibility, try out mpc. at --standard, most tracks are around 192kbps region.

 

[blessingx]

Quote:

Originally posted by master83 just want to get as much music on my player ...

 

[D-EJ915]

Quote:

Originally posted by MirandaX No, definitely not. If you're going up to 500 kbits/sec, you might as well use a lossless format (most average around 500 kbits/sec).

Haha, I encoded my WAVs as 500k OGG files just because I didn't have FLAC and wanted ID3 tags-lol

(I still have all the wav files)

 

[Stephonovich]

I did a OGG (GT3B1) vs. LAME (3.90.3) vs. MPC (1.14 Beta) test the other day. I used FLAC files ripped from EAC, so source wasn't an issue. Music used was Schism (Tool), Them Bones (Alice in Chains), Lithium (Nirvana), Highly Evolved (The Vines), and 40 Live (dc Talk). The last is a very well recorded Live song, with applause, and as we all know, that's always fun to torture encoders with

Note that my test methods are very sucky; I just load 'em up in QCD, randomize, minimize and use tray controls to test 'em out. Then afterward, I look at which was which. Also note I'm using a SB Live! (albeit with KX drivers and using the rear-out) and HD 280 Pro's. So it's not nearly reference quality. Basically, my music, my tests, my ears.

All codecs were set at their transparency level for me. -q6 for Ogg, --aps for MP3, --quality 5 --xlevel for MPC, and then, of course, the original FLAC file. Again, this is the level where usually I cannot hear the difference on most tracks at these levels, with my current equipment. If I ever upgrade, hey, I've got the FLAC files, so I'll do 'er again

Results

40 Live:

All tracks were transparent to me, with the exception that the MP3's hi-hat and rhythm egg (or whatever it's called...) sound was a tiny bit harsher and less pronounced. This could be due to --aps's high frequency roll-off, I dunno.

Them Bones:

All the tracks were transparent. Then again, Dirt (the album it's on) isn't the best recorded album, but hey, it's grunge rock. On a side note, the Ogg Vorbis track seemed to have a bit more presence than the others. Only way I can describe it is maybe thicker. Not slow, but just like a few more frequencies were present, giving it a fuller sound. It didn't sound any better to me, so I'm not going one way or the other on this.

Lithium:

During the intro, with the bass line, Ogg Vorbis was lacking in bass punch. Also, the cymbals coming after that seemed to all run together, instead of being distinct different hits.

Schism:

The only place I ever found a difference was about 2:15 into the song, where Maynard starts yelling. MPC smoothed out the cymbal crashes more so than even the original FLAC file. I myself found this more pleasing, but this, of course, is subjective.

Highly Evolved:

Again, the only place anything was amiss were the cymbals, although these were near the beginning. The rest of the song, the vocals pretty much overpower everything else. (Not that it's a bad thing; I love The Vines) MP3 made the cymbals too harsh for my tastes. Not a smooth transition from one to the next, and overall, it was just more canned sounding.


Once again, this is all strictly IMO. Argue if you wish, but at least post your own findings

In conclusion, there's not all that much difference. MP3 still seems to have some trouble handing high frequences, (at least at --aps... --api doesn't have as much of a roll-off, so that may help) but Ogg Vorbis choked on a few as well. MPC seemed to do the best overall, but also remember, it has a much larger filesize, and no portable support, if that's your thing. Myself, I'm gonna stick with FLAC for home use and Ogg Vorbis for portable.

(-:Stephonovich

 

[ProtoCat]

Quote:

Originally posted by evil-zen if you are looking for the best in sound quality with no need for compatibility, try out mpc. at --standard, most tracks are around 192kbps region.

Yes. Seconded. Musepack/MPC is probably the most transparent and impressive format I've ever heard. I won't get into my (mostly negative) opinion of Vorbis, however, I would suggest Musepack to anyone due to its quality and due to its lower requirements than either Vorbis or MP3 for decoding.

Case's Musepack page has the 1.14 encoder which will work with both EAC and CDex quite nicely. I personally use --insane for my encoding setting, one above --standard, but that's mainly to handle the chance I'll need to transcode at a later date and the CDs aren't exactly available.

After a year or so of solidly supporting and using this format, my own suspicions and actual conclusions I've reached via ABX were only further proven in a 128Kbps public listening test.

For those curious, I use a Revo 7.1 -> personally built META42 -> HD-600 at the moment and have roughly 200 albums encoded in Musepack. I always told myself I'd never ditch MP3 unless it was blatantly apparent I was gaining signifigant quality for the loss of ease of support -- ... Even though technically anything supporting MP3 should have MPEG Layer 2 support as well, which Musepack is a heavily modified variant of. Support for it on a hardware level isn't *impossible*.. Just improbable.

 

[D-EJ915]

Quote:

MP3 made the cymbals too harsh for my tastes

Very much so, I've also noticed that MP3s have a very cold and boring sound on my system compared to OGGs, which have a lot more detail (400k matters...no

), anyway, WMA is pretty good, but there are far less details than OGG (I haven't listened with the Lossless WMA vs. OGG).

 

[blessingx]

You guys done tests against AAC?

Sorry master83, we're really deviating from your original post concerning a player with MP3/Ogg support.

 

[Stephonovich]

Nope, I've never tested AAC. I might do so tonight if I'm so inclined. I have nothing better to do. But also, AAC is pretty much a propietary format, isn't it? MP3 is wide spread, and as for Ogg Vorbis, it's open source, and it's spreading. MPC, well, it's supposed to be the audiophile's lossy format, so I tested it. But as I said, I didn't hear all too much difference between them. And Ogg is much smaller. I might run some tests on a nice symphonic piece I have. That would put a bit more strain on 'em.

Ah yes, and as for WMA... I abso-freaking-lutely hate M$, so I'll never use WMA, even if their files are smaller

My real fear is closed source, actually. If a company goes bye-bye (not much chance with M$, but just a hypothetical company), there goes support, and all development. With open source, there's other users that pick up where you left off.

(-:Stephonovich