Ogg quality...

Jan 12, 2004 at 12:50 AM Thread Starter Post #1 of 12

jack963

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Posts
349
Likes
0
I've loaded about 1,000 MP3 files encoded at 160 so far on my Karma, and I decided to try some Ogg files tonight. I found out that Ogg is actually a smaller file compared to MP3 (at the same bitrate), so the question I have for you, which is supposed to sound better: an MP3 at 160 or an Ogg file at 160? I do not mean which sounds better to you, because I can do that on my own, but I am just wondering what is actually supposed to sound better? Thanks.
 
Jan 12, 2004 at 1:50 AM Post #3 of 12
i found both lame CBR 160 mp3 and 160 ogg exellent sounding, but i think OGG has closer-to-orginal bass
 
Jan 12, 2004 at 2:36 AM Post #4 of 12
I like Ogg not ogg or OGG alot better then mp3. Especially for rock. I have my collection at 160 Ogg. It handles heavy guitar rifts alot better i think. They dont get blurred together as much as in mp3. The trade off is you will lose about 1/3 of your battery life. That brings it down to about 9 hours. (Nearly double that of the ipod). so realistically its not that bad. It sounds great.
 
Jan 12, 2004 at 3:28 AM Post #5 of 12
Cool, thanks a lot guys. Gess I gotta re-encode 1,000 songs
mad.gif
 
Jan 12, 2004 at 4:06 AM Post #6 of 12
Quote:

Originally posted by CheewyMuffin
I like Ogg not ogg or OGG alot better then mp3.


If we're getting picky, I believe it's actually .ogg, Vorbis or Ogg Vorbis, not ogg, OGG or Ogg.
wink.gif
FLAC, Speex, Theora, etc. is also part of Ogg. Vorbis obviously is what is usually referred to as Ogg/ogg/OGG though.

For the question, I think you'll find 160 Ogg usually beats MP3, but when you move up much further it's more debatable as LAMEs presets are so well tuned.
 
Jan 12, 2004 at 4:12 AM Post #7 of 12
On you computer i think the file type is OGG. But on vorbis.com it is referred to as Ogg. Even without the "vorbis".
If i am wrong i am sorry.
cool.gif
 
Jan 12, 2004 at 4:51 AM Post #8 of 12
I have a question myself about this... I recently listened to Hail To The Thief on my CD player the other day and realized that the 192kbps rip I made just doesn't cut it anymore. I suppose it means it's time to rerip all my CDs.

I'm just ripping at default settings on EAC with LAME at 192kbps, using a Rio Karma... here's my question: is it possible to get it to sound better at 192kbps MP3 or Ogg? If not, based on what you believe are the best fine-tuned settings for each codec, what is better: 256kbps MP3 or Ogg? Thanks.
 
Jan 12, 2004 at 5:25 AM Post #9 of 12
Quote:

Originally posted by CheewyMuffin
I like Ogg not ogg or OGG alot better then mp3. Especially for rock. I have my collection at 160 Ogg. It handles heavy guitar rifts alot better i think. They dont get blurred together as much as in mp3. The trade off is you will lose about 1/3 of your battery life. That brings it down to about 9 hours. (Nearly double that of the ipod). so realistically its not that bad. It sounds great.


Did you properly 'drain' your battery prior and then fully recharge it prior to trying these tests?

In all honesty, with my q8 ogg rips, EQ enabled, I got to a little less than 1/4 the battery in about 10 hours and gave up. I'm sure it could've easily gone for at least 3 more hours.

For reference, I left the backlight off for pretty much all of the testing. I just loaded up an album and left it be, periodically checking the battery life.
 
Jan 12, 2004 at 6:02 AM Post #10 of 12
Ya i did all of the above. If i use mp3 only i can usually get 14 or so hours. Might be volume realated though im not to sure how mcuh that affects battery life. I usually am at 21 volume.
 
Jan 12, 2004 at 9:02 AM Post #11 of 12
Quote:

Originally posted by pinsomniac what is better: 256kbps MP3 or Ogg? Thanks.


Well if you're going for a target of ~256, you should probably use LAMEs "--alt-preset fast extreme" to get the advantages of true VBR (going up to 320) with MP3. Same for Ogg using -q settings. Now which is better -apx or -q8 (~256 kbps)... not sure. Either should be better than 192 if you're unsatisfied with that. I'd try a few files at the slightly lower Ogg -q7 (~224) and try a comparison to your 192 MP3s.

If file sizes are at all a concern, see this comparison.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top