|
Compare the two files.. Ogg or MP3 Printed from: Neuros Forums Topic: Topic author: American Techpusher
Subject: Compare the two files.. Ogg or MP3
Replies:
Reply author: demonbane While the topic is certainly interesting, I'm not planning on registering for yet another forum. However, having listened to those two samples, I actually HEAR a difference between the two. This is surprising given the rate at which they were encoded. But the OGG definitely has a more rounded-out sound (I can make out more distinct bass on the OGG) as well as less distortion. (The 'distorted' speaking sounds better on the OGG IMO.) However, this can't be quite a fair comparison without a baseline to comapare it against. A better comparison would have been say, a 30 second clip of this song done in Ogg Vorbis, VBR MP3, and WAV (or FLAC). That way we could compare the original more accurately to the compressed version.
Reply author: American Techpusher Thanks for listing and your opinion...
Reply author: rocketman768 Wow, I was surprised too. Although it'd be considered minor to most people, the biggest difference I hear b/w the ogg and mp3 files are that the mp3 files tend to make high pitched sounds like cymbals sound watery or metallicky. I dunno how to describe it. Also, the mp3 seems to do something funky with the snare drum. To me, it sounds like almost like many tiny imperceptible breaks in the sound of the snare. As for the bass, I guess my ears are not as sensitive there, but mine have been tested at 13 dB more sensitive in the ranges above 12 kHz. The ogg file seems to make the cymbals seem softer and more like original, although not perfect. I just HATE that watery sound though. It gets under your skin. Also, the higher frequencies with mp3's tend to sound a lot more whiney than do ogg's. Ogg is just more fat overall. Although barely noticeable to me, I hear a slight tinning of the vocals in mp3. That's all I have to say about that.
Reply author: American Techpusher Thanks Rocketman..
Reply author: carsten(at)xiph.org
quote: Of course you're not going to save any space with Ogg over MP3 when you encode both at the same bitrate! The bitrate is a measure of the file size per second of music, so by requesting the same bitrate, you're requesting the same (or comparable) file size. (Update: I had assumed that both files were encoded to 256kbps, but after downloading the files, it turns out that the Ogg is actually bigger, because the MP3 averages only 192kbps.) To test the space savings, you'd have to encode to Oggs at smaller and smaller bitrates, until the quality is comparable to MP3. Depending on your taste, this might be as little as half the size of the MP3. You could also shoot for a middle ground and get files that sound better than MP3 but that are still smaller than MP3. Hope this helps, Carsten Haese.
Reply author: 8thNote I did a test on a couple files last week and found Ogg Q6 to be comparable to 192 kbps VBR MP3. However, the Ogg made a great car insurance commercial. I saved about 10–15% 6n each file. (Now I know why that one Neuros-member says that in his sig.)
Reply author: Lou Erickson Using good earphones, and/or a good sound card if you're not using your Neuros, you'll hear even more difference, naturally.
Reply author: American Techpusher I changed from all mp3 to Ogg myself.
Reply author: nxg125
quote: Looks like you better change your screen name too then --Nick
Reply author: American Techpusher Funny you should say that NXG125.
Reply author: rocketman768 To see mp3's limits, you should see how crappy any kind of metal or punk or this new punk crap sounds at so-called "CD quality" (128-160 kbps). It fails miserably there in my opinion. Other newer formats like ogg and wma seem tons better there. With some songs, you can almost turn it down to 96 kbps for ogg. Neuros Forums : http://www.neurosaudio.com/community/forum/ © Copyright ©2002-05 Neuros Technology International, LLC all rights reserved. |