MP3 vs. OGG

[NightFalcon]

Hi there guys, I'm currently trying to get my music collection up to date a bit (currently most of it is in mp3 128kbps format). So I wanted to ask which of those 2 formats is regarded to yield the best quality at the 320kbps range? The size doesn't really matter, but it has to be one of those 2 formats. Thanks for any tips

[EDIT]
And another thing I wanted to add. Is there a significant difference (noticeable to the ear) between 192 and 320? I know what the numbers say, but can you easily identify which one is which if you didn't know?

 

[Gurck]

ogg sounds far better at any given bitrate. 192 vs 320 depends on how much of a priority space is and what kind of equipment you have (192 plenty with onboard sound or any speakers under about $500).

 

[NightFalcon]

Hm... I've been running a few of my own tests between formats and also bitrate and so far it seems like ogg at 320 is really missing something at the higher frequencies. I download a few songs from allofmp3.com, one version in lame 320 cbr and one in ogg 320, and the lame version just sounds a much "fuller" then the ogg. Will try it out with a few more though. As for 192 vs 320 - personally, I can't tell the difference at all. Got my new Z-5500 speakers yesterday, so that's why I'm going through all this But neither on them, nor on my headphones can I tell the difference between 320 and 192. (Using Audigy 2 ZS sound card)

Now here's another question... cbr vs abr in lame - what would be your choice? Reading some comparisons that I find on google it seems like abr produces higher quality, but haven't gotten around to testing this myself yet.

Right now I'm leaning towards 256 abr lame. Seems like it might be a good mix for me in terms of space vs quality.

 

[Gurck]

Yeah, Audigy 2 to MM speakers isn't going to reveal the finer details of most music. It's a fine card for games, and fine speakers for a PC, but resampling everything means something's missing, and there's virtually no limit to what you can spend on speakers, most being worth it. For $25 you can add a Chaintech av710 to your system and enjoy much richer sounding music (once you properly set it up). The two cards coexist quite well - I speak from firsthand experience As far as comparing the formats, I wouldn't trust someone else's ripping, convert them yourself from wav's ripped with EAC. Also try to have the newest revisions of each codec. As I understand it, abr, vbr and crb sound the same but vary in filesize. Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not very familiar with the nuances of lame as I rip only to 192bit ogg (flac for my favorites only - space is a concern). What headphones do you have?

 

[Insomniak]

I prefer OGG, but mp3 has most of the market, so...

It's the Windows paradox.

 

[drag]

Ogg is better, generally.

Mp3 is pretty old fasion, but it's popular and that's why people still use it.

Ogg also has the ability to handle 255 descrete audio channels so it can have 'real' 7.1 surround sound (as apposed to Pro-Logic), but I don't know anybody that uses it for such, since most people use it for cdroms and that's 2 channels only. (mp3 is 2 channels, only, too. Newer versions of Mp3 can handle more, but those have licensing costs and such and nobody uses them, I beleive)

Stuff like that.

Here is their comparision pages.
http://www.xiph.org/ogg/vorbis/listen.html

Also I don't see much point in encoding above 192kbps, personally. If you want best quality possible I'd just go with lossless format like Flac and always have 100% audio quality.

 

[torpid]

I use ogg but it can be a mixed bag. Portable players usually drain batteries faster when playing ogg, due to it being a somewhat more intensive algorithm. And for this reason, many players do not even support it.

 

[SagaLore]

So are we going to start seeing OGG players?

 

[ribbon13]

Rio Karma supports FLAC.

 

[drag]

Yep. Mobile devices are usually setup to use MP3, but not always for Ogg, unfortunately.

There are a few that do though (and these tend to be higher quality and support many different formats, anyways.)

For some background the orginization that developed Ogg Vorbis also developed some other codecs...

Also 'Ogg' is a container format. Like .avi or quicktime formats. For instance can have AVI files that are Mpeg4 video + AC3 audio. Or you can have Mpeg4 + Mp3 inside avi files.

Well Ogg is like this. Ogg Vorbis is the actuall technical name for thesse audio files. But the container format 'Ogg' can contain more then just Vorbis sound.

Xiph also developed Flac, which is a lossless audio codec. (mp3's, Ogg Vorbis, and such are 'lossy'). They developed Speex which is a codec for voice only, not music. Speex is used in TeamSpeak, and some SIP or H.323-style VoIP setups. This makes clear speech over spotty and low bandwidth connections (as much as possible).

Ogg Vorbis is used in some games, too. Many games. A couple are Ut2004 and Doom3. See, it supports surround sound.

People have created OGM files by sticking Vorbis audio and Mpeg4 video into Ogg container format. Not the nicest thing though.

For video, last december, Theora came out of beta. This is a competator with mpeg4, but it should have nicer video quality and it doesn't have the 'blockiness' that comes with most high compressed video files.

So you now create Ogg Theora/Vorbis files, with full surround sound and high quality video and stream them over the internet, or in a local lan.

One thing that can do this is newer versions of Icecast.
http://www.icecast.org/

Icecast is a free version of the Shoutcast audio media streamer...

With version 2.0 they added support for Ogg Vorbis (became the major focus of it, I think) and since it supported Ogg Vorbis, it was a short hop to support Ogg Vorbis Theora video files...

So you can use it to stream video stuff, too. Makes a nice dedicated streamer.

However Theora hasn't been around for very long, so getting support for it is tough. However I do know that VLC supports it.
http://www.videolan.org/vlc/

VLC supports most formats, and can actually stream many formats itself. If your using Linux it's possible to even stream TV that you captured with TV capture cards (assuming that they are supported by Linux), and stuff like that. DVD's, audio, video, avis, theora. All that stuff. But Icecast would make a better dedicated Theora server.

VLC has OS X versions, Linux (was originally Linux app) and has good Windows versions. (and even PocketPC/WinCE/Zope, and BeOS versions)
http://www.videolan.org/vlc/

Just some stuff to play around with. Theora is new, and therefore a bit diffucult to muck around with, but that will change as it matures.

 

[shortylickens]

I know all the hard-core audiophiles prefer OGG to MP3, but I find the format is easier to work with. More players that regularily accept it, many games that will let you import it (except UT2003,2004) and much more common on the file-sharing networks. Not that I would condone such behavior.

 

[NightFalcon]

Thanks for all the help guys, this is really useful

Does seem like more people are leaning towards ogg, but after many more tests ogg still sounds worse to me. I'm comparing 256 abr lame with OGG Vorbis 256 and ogg still doesn't sound as good. I've been reading some things as well and it seems like ogg really has an upper hand near the low bitrates, but that's about all I could conclude from that.

The format in terms of compatibility isn't really important to me, since my iRiver will happily play ogg and mp3 and a bunch of other stuff. But in terms of quality, mp3s still sound better to me. Orgigianlly I actually asked about AAC as well, only to find out that my iRiver won't play that Oh well...

 

[kmmatney]

At 192 kbps I don't think it will matter what format you use. I personally think OGG sounds better than MP3 at 64 kbps, but that's only a concern if space is important. At your bitrate, you might as well go MP3. Compataiblity is not an issue for now, but it may be in issue if you ever transfer your music to other devices.

 

[Gurck]

Originally posted by: SagaLore
So are we going to start seeing OGG players?

Plenty of portables play ogg, including all the higher end hdd-based models, and of course winamp via plugin and foobar natively.

 

[kylef]

I'll throw in my $0.02 here.

I don't think any team has done more rigorous high-bitrate quality analysis work than the Lame people did with their "--alt-preset-standard" (and --r3mix before that) quality analysis. It's truly phenomenal.

While other teams were focusing on low-bitrate superiority, Lame focused on high-end quality. Most of the comparisons that say "Ogg-Vorbis is superior" are focused on lower bitrates that make more sense for portables with flash memories.

For archival purposes, a lossless codec will always be superior. But if you're going with a lossy format, here are the reasons I choose Lame VBR mp3s:

- Mp3 is nearly universally supported by players (DVD players, in-dash car stereos, portable devices, cell phones, pda's, etc) so you won't ever need to transcode again to play in your car, at the gym, etc.

- When using Lame's --alt-preset-standard to generate mp3s with average vbr bitrates above ~175kbps or so, it is very difficult for human ears to distinguish the resulting mp3 from the original source, even on high-end equipment.

- Yes, with Ogg-Vorbis, perhaps the average bitrate to achieve "archival" quality is somewhat smaller, say ~145 kbps. But so what? With storage space so cheap and always getting cheaper, do you really care about the 17% space savings? It's not worth it to tradeoff all the other advantages of mp3, in my opinion.

- TONS of software that support Mp3 playback, ID3 tag editing, etc

- Audiograbber 1.83 Freeware with the LameEnc.dll plugin rocks and is wicked fast at direct-to-mp3 encoding!! (Much faster and more user-friendly than EAC, which is another free option.)

- Sharing your music with others (assuming both of you own the content rights, of course) is easier when you don't have to explain to them what a .ogg file is and how to play it, etc. You know who I mean... the types that just run WMP

 

[kylef]

Originally posted by: Gurck
ogg sounds far better at any given bitrate.

This is just wrong. At average bitrates above ~192 kbps using Lame, less than 1% of the population can tell a difference at all in double blind tests on high end equipment.

At any given LOW bitrate, you may be correct. But above a certain point, the codec just doesn't matter much anymore except as a space-saving factor. Which again, means you probably aren't going to encode at high bitrates in the first place.

 

[Gurck]

Originally posted by: kylef

Originally posted by: Gurck
ogg sounds far better at any given bitrate.

This is just wrong. At average bitrates above ~192 kbps using Lame, less than 1% of the population can tell a difference at all in double blind tests on high end equipment.

At any given LOW bitrate, you may be correct. But above a certain point, the codec just doesn't matter much anymore except as a space-saving factor. Which again, means you probably aren't going to encode at high bitrates in the first place.

Call me "One" then I guess, 'cause the difference is crystal clear to me at 192 and above... av710 (kernel streaming) -> unamped hd280s

 

[kylef]

Originally posted by: Gurck
Call me "One" then I guess, 'cause the difference is crystal clear to me at 192 and above... av710 (kernel streaming) -> unamped hd280s

I find that VERY amazing, especially considering that you are using your sound card's awful excuse for a DAC.

I have decent ears, myself... I can hear the difference, for instance, between standard 44khz 16-bit CD recordings and 2.8224 Mhz 1-bit SACD recordings using my setup (Onkyo DV-SP502 through a Yamaha RX-V640 and Sony MDR-V6 headphones). But using the exact same setup (using a spdif toslink out from my computer's sound card to the Yamaha), I cannot tell the difference in 99% of audio clips encoded using Lame --alt-preset-standard as compared to the original source CD.

But essentially what you and I claim to be able to hear is irrelevant. The ultimate test is whether the person making the choice can tell. I encourage anyone weighing the options to try out Audiograbber, with the Lame Dll plugin, set to "Default method, VBR2, Joint stereo" (which is identical to --alt-preset-standard from the command-line Lame). I'll be damned if you aren't impressed with the results.

When you do it, make sure you use a decent listening setup or the whole point is moot. Your computer sound card's line out jack is NOT a decent listening setup, unless you have a high-end M-Audio or E-mu. Most likely, you'll need to run a spdif cable to your home theater receiver and listen via its internal DACs, which are almost certainly superior to any built into your average sub-$100 PC sound card.

 

[Gurck]

Originally posted by: kylef
I find that VERY amazing, especially considering that you are using your sound card's awful excuse for a DAC.

the av710 is very highly regarded - do some research before knocking it. Your headphones, otoh, are a joke, like most Sony products. You don't mention what sound card you have, btw...?

 

[kylef]

Originally posted by: Gurck
the av710 is very highly regarded - do some research before knocking it.

I meant no disrespect to the AV710. I'm sure it's a great sub-$100 sound card, and represents a great value when compared to other sub-$100 cards.

However, like other sub-$100 cards, its fidelity cannot match that of any decent audio codec, including Lame. PCI based sound cards have far too many clock jitter, power line interference, and cross-talk noise issues to seriously consider their analog outputs anywhere near audiophile quality. (Their spdif outputs, on the other hand, are just fine, for obvious reasons.)

But even if there weren't these jitter, power, and crosstalk issues, no sub-$100 sound card that I've ever heard of has good discrete-channel D/A converters. It's simple economics really. Your sound card manufacturer can't afford to spend $5 per chip for a discrete BiCMOS D/A converter per channel, like these Analog Devices examples or $25 per chip for one of these Burr Brown examples. You're only going to find them in real audio equipment (a decent home theater receiver will have far superior D/A converters than any PC sound card).

Your headphones, otoh, are a joke, like most Sony products.

In general, your knee-jerk reaction to Sony audio products may be deserved. But not so with the MDR-V6. The MDR-V6 has been a studio monitor favorite in many recording studios since it was introduced in 1985. It was one of the first sets of mass-produced headphones engineered with neodymium-iron-boron magnets, which subsequently revolutionized headphone design in the late 1980s. The MDR-V6 is a winner: I don't have to defend it.

You don't mention what sound card you have, btw...?

When running TOSLINK out of a sound card into a receiver, the sound card plays no part in creating the analog waveform that is amplified to your ear (that is, assuming there are no silly "digital equalizer" or "digital effects" turned on). That's why I did not mention it. But since you asked, I'm currently using this little Xitel USB sound interface that works quite well with XP's inbox USB audio class drivers. No extra WDM drivers required. Nothing fancy, bit if all you care about is PCM, it's all you need. (And the cables it comes with are worth the price alone, actually...)

 

[sparkyclarky]

I'd go with lossless if you have the space, as you can always transcode when needed

 

[Elcs]

I use MP3 because its common and it sounds good.

Using Creative Labs Inpsire 5.1 Digital 5500's hooked up to my NF7-S Rev 2.0 via an Optical cable, I cant tell the difference between 192 and 320 kbps mp3's.

With my phone, there are very few tracks I can hear the difference between 112 and 128.

I ripped one of my CD's into OGG and into MP3. I couldnt tell the difference so I stuck with MP3.

 

[0roo0roo]

mp3 at higher bitrates. disc space is pretty irrelevant now, and the universal compatibility pushes it over the top. quality quibble is a waste of time anyways, sacd/dvda prove that "cd quality" isn't the best u can get..even if those two formats die, whos to say whats to come in the future

 

[drag]

av710 is mostly way over-hyped.

The thing about it is that it uses nice wolfson DAC for the rear out channels. For the other channels is uses a cheap VIA multiple DAC stuff that you get with any old generic cheap onboard Via-based envy24ht or envy24pt card.

Good sound quality, but it's those magical rear-outs digital analog converter units is what makes chaintech av710 desirable over other cheap cards. And even then you have muck around with drivers and different do-dads to get the most out of them. Otherwise they are just as generic as the next low-budget card.

And the only reason they use those Wolfson DAC units is because the generic Via multiple DAC chip they use doesn't have enough channels in it for all the outputs. So they slap those for rear out because they use them in higher-end envy24 cards and it's probably cheaper to use what they already buy in bulk then to find another third party DAC to put in there.

Personally I use full digital path thru the computer (use cdparanoia-based rippers to rip the data off of the cdrom, rather then thru a analog cdrom to sound card connection) and to digital out and let the probably-much-higher-quality DACs in my cheapo 'home theater' surround sound to do the final digital to analog conversion for the speakers/headphones.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
mp3 at higher bitrates. disc space is pretty irrelevant now, and the universal compatibility pushes it over the top. quality quibble is a waste of time anyways, sacd/dvda prove that "cd quality" isn't the best u can get..even if those two formats die, whos to say whats to come in the future

Use lossless for best quality.

Like FLAC.

MP3's and Ogg's Vorbis are lossy formats, which means that they discard information to improve compression ratios. Good for streaming and saving disk space.

FLAC is for 100% quality. It compresses like a ZIP file does, but it's designed for specificly for audio so it gets higher ratio of compression. the information you compress is bit for bit the exact same duplicate as the information you get when you decompress.

That's what I call 'archival' quality. Always 100% the highest quality you can get considuring your source.

As far as 'CD' quality goes. When your using cdroms for original music, it's the best you can get.

The only reason I'd use MP3's is if I had a device that would only handle MP3s. Otherwise I don't touch them. (why automaticly choose the inferior one, just because everybody uses it? If I am going to rip my own music there is no advantage of mp3 over ogg, especially at low bitrates were Ogg definately dominates.)