179,854Messages
9,130Senders
30Years
342mboxes
Search · subject · body · from · to
Advanced search
reset

← archive index

Re: [idm] Ogg vs MP3 encoding

5 messages · 5 participants · spans 1 day · search this subject
◇ merged from 2 subjects: atp (ae) track and crappy mp3 encoding · ogg vs mp3 encoding
2003-04-16 08:14Knapman, James Re: [idm] ATP (ae) track and crappy MP3 encoding
└─ 2003-04-16 16:36Irene McC [idm] Ogg vs MP3 encoding
└─ 2003-04-16 19:07Re: [idm] Ogg vs MP3 encoding
└─ 2003-04-16 22:44James R Bamford RE: [idm] Ogg vs MP3 encoding
2003-04-16 17:46SE/30 Re: [idm] Ogg vs MP3 encoding
expand allcollapse allclick any summary to toggle that message
2003-04-16 08:14Knapman, Jamesjanos wrote :: I say average music consumer doesn't give a shit for sound quality. they ca
From:
Knapman, James
To:
Date:
Wed, 16 Apr 2003 09:14:22 +0100
Subject:
Re: [idm] ATP (ae) track and crappy MP3 encoding
permalink · <574EEDF8F505D21189E500A0C9C855780123DAFB@PFS_MAILSVR2>
janos wrote :: I say average music consumer doesn't give a shit for sound quality. they can't tell the difference between 96 & 192 k. :: Actually, this is very true. I had a long argument with all of my colleagues at work about this. I had mp3's of some of my favourite albums on my machine at work, and some people wanted to listen to them. I was laughed out of the office for encoding at 192k (and in many cases higher), because they all said there was no difference between that and 96k. So we did a blind test of the same tracks encoded at different bitrates. Whilst the difference was immediately obvious to me (the tracks encoded at higher rates don't sounds like they're constantly being dunked in the sea) and I identified them correctly within seconds, nobody else could hear ANY difference whatsoever. And so the conclusion was drawn that I was wrong, that there was no benefit at all in sampling at higher bitrates and that I was some sort of freak. But then that's what happens when you work with idiots. Oh, and all this was before I discovered Ogg Vorbis anyway. Which is much better (and smaller). )Jame.s --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org
2003-04-16 16:36Irene McCOn 16 Apr 2003 at 9:14, Knapman, James wrote: > Oh, and all this was before I discovered O
From:
Irene McC
To:
,
Date:
Wed, 16 Apr 2003 18:36:51 +0200
Subject:
[idm] Ogg vs MP3 encoding
Reply to:
Re: [idm] ATP (ae) track and crappy MP3 encoding
permalink · <3E9DA2C3.19141.10F53B9@localhost>
On 16 Apr 2003 at 9:14, Knapman, James wrote:
quoted 2 lines Oh, and all this was before I discovered Ogg Vorbis anyway. Which is> Oh, and all this was before I discovered Ogg Vorbis anyway. Which is > much better (and smaller).
Is it really smaller? With all this talk, I have Ogg'd my first track ever. To do a true comparison, I used 128kbit compression and compressed the same 4:09min track to Ogg Vorbis (file totals 4,088 kb) and the same track at 128 kbits MP3'd comes to a total of 3,906 kb. Obviously this is a tiny difference in size (and who said that size matters anyway, harrrrhargh). What compression rate do you recommend for Ogg? I just used Sound Forge, which offers 96, 128 and 320. I haven't installed a specific Ogg-ing device! Up to now I've been encoding MP3's using 192 kbits. Sorry to all who consider this thread OT. You are welcome to respond directly and not to the IDM list (please don't bother flaming). But I have to ask this : where does the name Ogg Vorbis come from, and what does it mean? I * --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org
2003-04-16 19:07adam@damek.orgWell, Vorbis audio is actually better measured by its "quality" than its bitrate. Some of
From:
To:
Date:
Wed, 16 Apr 2003 14:07:12 -0500 (CDT)
Subject:
Re: [idm] Ogg vs MP3 encoding
Reply to:
[idm] Ogg vs MP3 encoding
permalink · <1050520032.3e9da9e04e8ad@webmail.damek.org>
Well, Vorbis audio is actually better measured by its "quality" than its bitrate. Some of the 3rd party software, however, doesn't realize this, or make it clear, which provides for a poor example to people just trying it out. The quality setting has to do with the default encoding method which is variable bitrate (VBR). For more information on the Ogg Vorbis quality setting (I use "6"), see that section of the FAQ: http://vorbis.com/faq.psp#quality The FAQ doesn't mention that, depending on the capabilities of your encoder (the command-line version supports this), the quality scale is more finely-grained than it at first appears. You don't have to choose between "5" and "6" - if you want, you can pick "5.99" (a popular one for many) or anything else.... I find that, encoding at "6", I get files around the same size (usually a tad smaller) as I used to get encoding with LAME using the "--alt-preset standard" preset on the command line. And the Vorbis quality is much better, IMHO. As far as I can tell, you could encode at quality 3 or 4 and get a noticible file size reduction, yet have the same or better quality than 128kbps or 192kbps MP3 files. The only reason I encode at the higher 6 is that I use my digital audio as a sort of "backup" for my CDs, and so it's nice to have the same file size, yet better quality. And the totally free nature of the vorbis codec is a bonus... I know for certain I'll always be able to play my .OGGs :) On a related note, Proem now offers his live shows for download in Ogg Vorbis format instead of MP3 at his proemland.com site... On a less related note, those looking for an optimal codec for speech should check out http://www.speex.org/ -Adam Quoting Irene McC <substar@iafrica.com>:
quoted 33 lines On 16 Apr 2003 at 9:14, Knapman, James wrote:> On 16 Apr 2003 at 9:14, Knapman, James wrote: > > > Oh, and all this was before I discovered Ogg Vorbis anyway. Which is > > much better (and smaller). > > Is it really smaller? With all this talk, I have Ogg'd my first > track ever. To do a true comparison, I used 128kbit compression and > compressed the same 4:09min track to Ogg Vorbis (file totals 4,088 > kb) and the same track at 128 kbits MP3'd comes to a total of 3,906 > kb. > > Obviously this is a tiny difference in size (and who said that size > matters anyway, harrrrhargh). > > What compression rate do you recommend for Ogg? I just used Sound > Forge, which offers 96, 128 and 320. I haven't installed a specific > Ogg-ing device! Up to now I've been encoding MP3's using 192 kbits. > > Sorry to all who consider this thread OT. You are welcome to respond > directly and not to the IDM list (please don't bother flaming). > > But I have to ask this : where does the name Ogg Vorbis come from, > and what does it mean? > > I > * > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org > For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org > >
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org
2003-04-16 22:44James R BamfordOgg is a really cool codec, and its great for being open sourced.... for a long time the c
From:
James R Bamford
To:
,
Date:
Wed, 16 Apr 2003 23:44:30 +0100
Subject:
RE: [idm] Ogg vs MP3 encoding
Reply to:
Re: [idm] Ogg vs MP3 encoding
permalink · <PPEOJEIEFLAONFNHJPOOMEEEFNAA.jim@jimtreats.com>
Ogg is a really cool codec, and its great for being open sourced.... for a long time the codec has been focusing on the lower bitrates, trying to get those sounding as good as possible.. competing with the likes of mp3pro and its SBR technology.. I'm not sure if ogg has SBR yet tho.. without it struggles in some respects, with my ears at 64k compared to mp3pro... it is good though... I believe the higher bitrates are getting looked at now but to be honest i would stick with mp3 for the near future.. there are a lot of cases where ogg produces undesirable "pumping" artefacts with music where other traditional codecs have no problems... there are a collection of "difficult" to encode samples around which all the codecs can attempt to encode correctly... its the fact that outside of these well known files are a lot of files that ogg suffers from when others dont.. again with electronica nearly all the components of the music are in the class of difficult to encode sounds, and as such really push a codec.. I've said before that i find MPC the only choice for this, but assuming you still want to stick with ogg or mp3, going with mp3 and --alt-preset standard or extreme gives you the knowledge that a highly tuned codec is going to pretty much get you a near perfect encode... ogg will have a go at perfection and sometimes it will be significantly better than mp3 at lower bitrates... BUT there will be times when it lets through these undesireable sounds that are usually much easier to hear with headphones...
quoted 96 lines -----Original Message-----> -----Original Message----- > From: adam@damek.org [mailto:adam@damek.org] > Sent: 16 April 2003 20:07 > To: idm@hyperreal.org > Subject: Re: [idm] Ogg vs MP3 encoding > > > Well, Vorbis audio is actually better measured by its "quality" than its > bitrate. Some of the 3rd party software, however, doesn't > realize this, or make > it clear, which provides for a poor example to people just trying > it out. The > quality setting has to do with the default encoding method which > is variable > bitrate (VBR). > > For more information on the Ogg Vorbis quality setting (I use > "6"), see that > section of the FAQ: http://vorbis.com/faq.psp#quality > > The FAQ doesn't mention that, depending on the capabilities of > your encoder (the > command-line version supports this), the quality scale is more > finely-grained > than it at first appears. You don't have to choose between "5" > and "6" - if you > want, you can pick "5.99" (a popular one for many) or anything else.... > > I find that, encoding at "6", I get files around the same size > (usually a tad > smaller) as I used to get encoding with LAME using the > "--alt-preset standard" > preset on the command line. And the Vorbis quality is much better, IMHO. > > As far as I can tell, you could encode at quality 3 or 4 and get > a noticible > file size reduction, yet have the same or better quality than > 128kbps or 192kbps > MP3 files. The only reason I encode at the higher 6 is that I > use my digital > audio as a sort of "backup" for my CDs, and so it's nice to have > the same file > size, yet better quality. > > And the totally free nature of the vorbis codec is a bonus... I know for > certain I'll always be able to play my .OGGs :) > > On a related note, Proem now offers his live shows for download > in Ogg Vorbis > format instead of MP3 at his proemland.com site... > > On a less related note, those looking for an optimal codec for > speech should > check out http://www.speex.org/ > > -Adam > > Quoting Irene McC <substar@iafrica.com>: > > On 16 Apr 2003 at 9:14, Knapman, James wrote: > > > > > Oh, and all this was before I discovered Ogg Vorbis anyway. Which is > > > much better (and smaller). > > > > Is it really smaller? With all this talk, I have Ogg'd my first > > track ever. To do a true comparison, I used 128kbit compression and > > compressed the same 4:09min track to Ogg Vorbis (file totals 4,088 > > kb) and the same track at 128 kbits MP3'd comes to a total of 3,906 > > kb. > > > > Obviously this is a tiny difference in size (and who said that size > > matters anyway, harrrrhargh). > > > > What compression rate do you recommend for Ogg? I just used Sound > > Forge, which offers 96, 128 and 320. I haven't installed a specific > > Ogg-ing device! Up to now I've been encoding MP3's using 192 kbits. > > > > Sorry to all who consider this thread OT. You are welcome to respond > > directly and not to the IDM list (please don't bother flaming). > > > > But I have to ask this : where does the name Ogg Vorbis come from, > > and what does it mean? > > > > I > > * > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org > For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org >
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org
2003-04-16 17:46SE/30good ol' netrek :) from http://www.xiph.org/xiphname.html : --- An 'Ogg' is a tactical man
From:
SE/30
To:
, ,
Date:
Wed, 16 Apr 2003 10:46:42 -0700
Subject:
Re: [idm] Ogg vs MP3 encoding
permalink · <BAY8-DAV21E5kqPqZ1q00000b58@hotmail.com>
good ol' netrek :) from http://www.xiph.org/xiphname.html : --- An 'Ogg' is a tactical maneuver from the network game 'Netrek' that has entered common usage in a wider sense. From the definition: 3. To do anything forcefully, possibly without consideration of the drain on future resources. "I guess I'd better go ogg the problem set that's due tomorrow." "Whoops! I looked down at the map for a sec and almost ogged that oncoming car." Vorbis, on the other hand is named after the Terry Pratchett character from the book _Small Gods_. The name holds some significance, but it's an indirect, uninteresting story. --- if you're happy with 192kbps mp3's, you will be even happier with 128kbps vorbis encoded files. 96kbps is times on-par and at other times sub-par of 192kbps mp3, depending on the content. -=dave ----- Original Message ----- From: "Irene McC" <substar@iafrica.com> To: <JKnapman@PFS.Co.UK>; <idm@hyperreal.org> Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 9:36 AM Subject: [idm] Ogg vs MP3 encoding
quoted 33 lines On 16 Apr 2003 at 9:14, Knapman, James wrote:> On 16 Apr 2003 at 9:14, Knapman, James wrote: > > > Oh, and all this was before I discovered Ogg Vorbis anyway. Which is > > much better (and smaller). > > Is it really smaller? With all this talk, I have Ogg'd my first > track ever. To do a true comparison, I used 128kbit compression and > compressed the same 4:09min track to Ogg Vorbis (file totals 4,088 > kb) and the same track at 128 kbits MP3'd comes to a total of 3,906 > kb. > > Obviously this is a tiny difference in size (and who said that size > matters anyway, harrrrhargh). > > What compression rate do you recommend for Ogg? I just used Sound > Forge, which offers 96, 128 and 320. I haven't installed a specific > Ogg-ing device! Up to now I've been encoding MP3's using 192 kbits. > > Sorry to all who consider this thread OT. You are welcome to respond > directly and not to the IDM list (please don't bother flaming). > > But I have to ask this : where does the name Ogg Vorbis come from, > and what does it mean? > > I > * > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org > For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org > >
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org