Slashdot Mirror

That used to be true but is not anymore. Check out Hydrogenaudio.

The sad truth is that MPC beats Vorbis at higher bitrates and AAC (even mp3pro, WMA) beats Vorbis at lower bitrates. AAC is undergoing active development while vorbis is pretty much stuck where it is, there have been some tweaks but not much. The only thing ogg has got going for it is that it's open-source. But MPC now is open-source too. The other codecs beat ogg in terms of support in portables. I love ogg but unless they can get more developers working on it it's just going be irrelevant.

...It's because ogg was designed from the get-go to run on PCs and not embedded systems.

So I guess iRiver missed the memo huh? They have support for OGG on almost all of their flash players, and all of their HDD players.

Click here if you doubt.

The MP3 codec was not, in fact designed to run on portable systems, indeed it was never intended to be used separately from the MPEG-1 Video codec at all! Fraunhofer IIs simply came up with an audio codec that would pair well with MPEG's high-level video compression, someone figured out how to separate the stream into its own file, WinAmp came along, and presto, new music format.

In fact, because of its kludgy origin, the MP3 spec lacks many features that would make life easier, including (exemplia gratis) a proper indexing system--hence the seeking weirdness and sometimes fugly playback that plagues VBR-MP3 files.

The OGG container-file format and Vorbis encoder were designed to address these issues, as well as to provide a Free (speech & beer) and Open alternative to MP3, which is after all, property of Fraunhofer IIs.

OGG's non-popularity as a music format is attributable to two things:

1. obscurity, and
2. the "good enough" factor.

As a FOSS-developed format, OGG hasn't got the corporate backing (and advertising) that MP3 and WMA/ASF have. Therefore, not many have heard of it, outside of techie circles.

Even beside that, many who do hear of OGG Vorbis will often casually dismiss it, saying "MP3 is good enough for me". A heresy for the /. set, to be sure, but many people simply don't have the time/energy/interest to pursue a better alternative when a functional alternative is staring them in the face.

OGG support is nowhere near as hard to do as you make out, it's simply not done as often. Please do at least a little checking before you post such flamebait. (hint: try looking here or possibly here

No, no it's not. In fact ATRAC is a horrible format. Just check out the listening tests here and here , they along with countless other listening tests show that ATRAC3 (and it's newest variants) are crap compared to the Free and Open LAME MP3 and Ogg Vorbis codec's. There's simple zero reason to use ATRAC as it always underperforms just about every other codec except WMA.

What happened? I'm using it for all my music, and most game developers are using it for both music and sound-fx. Machinae Supremacy are still releasing songs in Vorbis, etc, etc.

Try the tuned aoTuV version at q -2 and up.

Go to this website:

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/

(Read and search the site before asking any questions.)

Actually, it's not overlooked. If you start at the beginning (article I), you'll find that Ogg is specifically mentioned up front because of it's popularity, and that many of the units support do support Ogg. I only skimmed the five articles, but at a guess, I'd say that roughly a third of units support Ogg.

And if your coat-hangers-and-corned-beef format could perform as well as Ogg has in independent, double-blind listening tests, then maybe you should be screaming blue murder if people are ignoring it.

According to the research behind MP3 encoders (see HydrogenAudio), the frequency contents above 16 kHz has no effect on the perception of music. Sure, you might be able to hear a 20 kHz sine wave in an otherwise quiet environment, but in music, they do not matter.

Have you tried Foobar 2000(I would recommend the Special Install)?

It has excellent tagging capabilities, and more than a few useful plug-ins.

Their forum's quite useful as well.

Of course, OGG Vorbis kicks ass over all the others at least at around 128 kbps (listening test results here).

Say what? this has gone OT but i have to point out: nobody talks like that, you pick a bitrate and let the encoder (if it's any good) choose joint-stereo or whatever form of channel coupling it wants to give the best perceptable quality for the bitrate. 320kbps per channel would be impossible on anything more than mono material as it takes you over the limit (unless you want freeform MP3s, which nothing is guaranteed to decode). No wonder you were confused, read some of the content here.

I can also recommend foobar2000, which became my player of choice on windows. Contrary to iTunes, it plays everything (ogg, mpc, ape...). Contrary to Winamp, it painlessly manages huge (60+ GB) playlists, with a database with excellent searching capabilities, and a wonderful tagger. It's text based (no fancy graphic stuff), with scriptable display. The SDK allows 3rd party plugin development. For more information, and other high level audio info, check the Hydrogen Audio forum.

No problem. This test was performed by Roberto Amorim of HydrogenAudio using an ITU standard test methodology.

HydrogenAudio has among the strictest standards for audio comparisons - merely posting "codec X is better than codec Y at N bitrate" without ABX test results to back it up is against the posting guidelines. I've yet to see anyone make a convincing critcism of their methods.

Generally, you're allowed much the same as MP3: ABR with small bit reservoir, ABR with regular bit reservoir, ABR with NO bit reservoir (essentially - CBR) and pure VBR.

Hydrogen Audio Link Here

I bought a Psion Wavefinder for 40 UKP a couple of years ago (about 70 USD at the exchange rate then). Most streams are 128kbps mp2s, which for all intents and purposes sound like mp3s to your average listener. You can record the streams using free software directly to an mp2 file, which you can play in Winamp et al. Digital Audio Broadcasting (DAB) in Europe also carries additional information with the raw stream, including artist and track title. DAB is free and broadcast via regular antennas, so you can switch your DAB radio on indoors and enjoy. There are around 20-30 decent stations to listen to.

I now live in the USA. I recently bought an XM tuner for my car, 150 USD plus 50 USD for the antenna, plus 10 USD per month for subscription. I was initially disappointed with the sound quality, and after doing some research, found nearly all channels to be less than 64kbps in a format similar to AAC (called CT-aacPlus - http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/lofiversion/in dex.php/t10492.html). The low bitrate means that a lot of the higher frequencies are severely cut, and the stereo imaging is poor. The clarity of a clean FM broadcast is far superior. I felt I was misled by sales talk that claimed "CD quality". It is not even close to cassette tape quality.

Anyway, back to my point. If you record an XM stream, it looks like it will be saved as an mp3. This means that the original stream has been re-encoded, losing quality. Re-encoding a 64kbps stream is not pretty, for anyone who has tried it.

XM has more choice and variety, but is expensive and of questionable quality. Yes, none of the music stations carry ads, but neither do the BBC channels on DAB in the UK, which form the bulk of the channel suite. Also, there is no radio licence in the UK, so it is completely free.

Theoretically, vinyl CAN have greater resolution than CD, but once you have played it enough, the wear on the vinyl destroys this. CDs may scratch and rot, but they don't wear.

In practice, you will obtain much better results on CDs, if it isn't the digitally compressed mess of today, unless you are say, SPECIFICALLY trying to record a 23 kHz sine wave onto a medium. Yes, it is possible to do this on vinyl, and not possible on a CD, but that is beside the point.

As for "quality", that is all opinion, but you state it as "In fact...". It is not a FACT at all that vinyl is higher quality than CD, or vice versa. Quality is all up to your perception. If you hear vinyl better, go for it dude. More correctly though, what you COULD have said is that, "In fact, my opinion is that CD is of significantly less quality than vinyl", but you didn't.

Sources: Source 1 Source 2

Theoretically, vinyl CAN have greater resolution than CD, but once you have played it enough, the wear on the vinyl destroys this. CDs may scratch and rot, but they don't wear.

In practice, you will obtain much better results on CDs, if it isn't the digitally compressed mess of today, unless you are say, SPECIFICALLY trying to record a 23 kHz sine wave onto a medium. Yes, it is possible to do this on vinyl, and not possible on a CD, but that is beside the point.

As for "quality", that is all opinion, but you state it as "In fact...". It is not a FACT at all that vinyl is higher quality than CD, or vice versa. Quality is all up to your perception. If you hear vinyl better, go for it dude. More correctly though, what you COULD have said is that, "In fact, my opinion is that CD is of significantly less quality than vinyl", but you didn't.

Sources: Source 1 Source 2

It seems there is quite a lot of confusion about what Read exactly did. Some people are under the impression that Real is installing custom firmware on the iPod. According to a poster who claims to be an engineer from Real, they did not change anything on the iPod or in iTunes. All they did was maskerading the files from their own music store (which are 192kbps AAC with their own DRM) as Fairplay AAC files.

As you know, the RealNetworks music store sells songs in 192 kbps AAC (as opposed to iTMS at 128 kbps). When transferring your purchased songs to the iPod, the AAC itself is not touched, but the Helix DRM is transmuxed to the DRM used by the iPod, i.e. fully protected and without trans-coding. If you then transfer the file back to your PC (for instance with Anapod), you get an M4P file, that is a protected MPEG-4 AAC file.

As you know, the RealNetworks music store sells songs in 192 kbps AAC (as opposed to iTMS at 128 kbps). When transferring your purchased songs to the iPod, the AAC itself is not touched, but the Helix DRM is transmuxed to the DRM used by the iPod, i.e. fully protected and without trans-coding. If you then transfer the file back to your PC (for instance with Anapod), you get an M4P file, that is a protected MPEG-4 AAC file.

The best thing about this, is there will actually be people who enter this discussion thinking they may say something so convincing that everyone will end up on one side of the fence. Fact is, the tube crowd will always swear it's worth the money for the huge difference in sound which they hear, and the non-tube crowd will claim to either be unable to hear the difference, or won't find the disadvantages of tubes (fragility, cost, size) to be worth the minimal difference in sound (as they perceive it). And this isn't even factoring in the vinyl crowd!

Listening at that low quality doesn't have as much commercial, and quite frankly, personal appeal as it did back in the 90's.

Not every location is set up for wireless broadband Internet access. Can you get affordable broadband on your mobile phone? GSM mobile phones receive and transmit voice at 13 kbps using the GSM RPE-LTP codec; one often has to pay extra just to get 32 kbps data. Also think about digital radio; lower bitrate for a given perceptual quality allows for more music choices in the same frequency, possibly reducing the number of actual stations that Clear Channel needs to own. Another application of low bitrate audio is in handheld video games; I've written a program to encode music at 30 kbps and then play it back on the Game Boy Advance, a machine thought not to be able to handle the mathematical complexity of MP3.

What I really want to see is a rating of codecs that are able to achieve DBT-proven audible transparency

If you're looking for transparency proven with ABX double-blind testing, you know where to find it.

Notice all the different non-standard switches I had to use, which together help noticably. That's the sort of stuff you need to do to LAME before it produces acceptable results at very low bitrates. It is optimized only for 44.1KHz, so we should keep that in mind when we see the results. Notice now that none of these switches are being used for this test, so I'm almost certain that LAME will come out looking much worse than it is.

I would love for there to be a LAME-based encoder that is optimized for speech, low bitrates and sample rates. If it is made, I am prepared to re-encode all the readings that are (and are about to be) posted on my site.

Thank you for being so obvious.

Most of the iPod's data files have already been worked out to a great degree. Not everything, mind you, but most of it. All the important bits, anyway. It just takes a bit of searching around.

I wrote a set of C++ classes for dealing with the iPod's data files, and with the help of Aero, we've refined it to cover just about everything in a plug-in for foobar 2000 called foo_pod.

We're almost there with real, live updating, smart playlist support now (which no other third party iPod-capable app has yet, that I know of). Just a few minor things left to be done on the back end, and the interface sounds like it is coming along nicely. :)

There's very little an actual SDK could add at this point. When the iPod is connected to the computer, it just appears to be a hard drive to the computer. No special communication channels we can find at all.

Actually, they are close enough that this is arguable.

Nope.

You are right ogg vorbis is the better one: Result of double-blind listening test.

On second though: You are just full of shit, and properbly dont know it.

I agree that iTunes is bloated and doesn't behave well by default (at least in Windows). I agree that Winamp is way better than iTunes as a music player, etc, etc.

But I also believe that Justin Frankel was completely frustrated for not being able to take Winamp even further. Try foobar2000. Don't give up after you see the interface (most new users are scared by the absence of skins :-O ) Try using it for some days. Check some third-party plugins and some alternative formatting strings. And, even more important, its audio capabilities. It has built-in support for every major lossy audio format out there (MP3, Ogg Vorbis, Musepack, AAC, etc) and also features ReplayGain, proper dither, supports all major tagging systems properly and it's completely customizable.

BTW, foobar2000 is developed by Peter Pawlowski that once worked for Nullsoft (Winamp's current default output plugins were made by him - check the about box). I guess he just got tired of Nullsoft/AOL corporate inertia.

I recommend getting the recommended LAME compile from Hydrogenaudio and using the recommended LAME settings. So that's LAME 3.90.3 using --alt-preset standard. You will not be disappointed. If you still think you hear something, e-mail me.

I recommend getting the recommended LAME compile from Hydrogenaudio and using the recommended LAME settings. So that's LAME 3.90.3 using --alt-preset standard. You will not be disappointed. If you still think you hear something, e-mail me.

I'd wonder why songs are encoded from 16 bits / 44100 hz, while our ear can hear a difference with 96 khz/32bits and consumer sound cards can often do 48khz ? (if you can do better than rip from a CD, that is)

I mean, would 160 kbps sound better from 44100 or 48 / 96 khz ?

High definition digital audio

Do CD sound good enough ?
Theoretical discussion : 44 KHz (CD) not enough !? (Nyquist etc.), plethora of distortion frequencies?
Listening test : 96 vs. 48 or 44.1 kHz sampling --> scientific test, perhaps here is the 1. listening test !
Another discussion : Sound, the human ear, and the digital world

Why was 44.1 kHz chosen ?
48, 44.1 khz, why no and/or not 40 khz, Only for 2 channel audio...........

SACD/DVDA
Help! Sacd Good Or Bad?, Does SACD ought to sound like crud?

96 kHz sampling rate
George, Watch this!!!....(96k) @George Massenburg, abstract in page 33

I'd wonder why songs are encoded from 16 bits / 44100 hz, while our ear can hear a difference with 96 khz/32bits and consumer sound cards can often do 48khz ? (if you can do better than rip from a CD, that is)

I mean, would 160 kbps sound better from 44100 or 48 / 96 khz ?

High definition digital audio

Do CD sound good enough ?
Theoretical discussion : 44 KHz (CD) not enough !? (Nyquist etc.), plethora of distortion frequencies?
Listening test : 96 vs. 48 or 44.1 kHz sampling --> scientific test, perhaps here is the 1. listening test !
Another discussion : Sound, the human ear, and the digital world

Why was 44.1 kHz chosen ?
48, 44.1 khz, why no and/or not 40 khz, Only for 2 channel audio...........

SACD/DVDA
Help! Sacd Good Or Bad?, Does SACD ought to sound like crud?

96 kHz sampling rate
George, Watch this!!!....(96k) @George Massenburg, abstract in page 33

I'd wonder why songs are encoded from 16 bits / 44100 hz, while our ear can hear a difference with 96 khz/32bits and consumer sound cards can often do 48khz ? (if you can do better than rip from a CD, that is)

I mean, would 160 kbps sound better from 44100 or 48 / 96 khz ?

High definition digital audio

Do CD sound good enough ?
Theoretical discussion : 44 KHz (CD) not enough !? (Nyquist etc.), plethora of distortion frequencies?
Listening test : 96 vs. 48 or 44.1 kHz sampling --> scientific test, perhaps here is the 1. listening test !
Another discussion : Sound, the human ear, and the digital world

Why was 44.1 kHz chosen ?
48, 44.1 khz, why no and/or not 40 khz, Only for 2 channel audio...........

SACD/DVDA
Help! Sacd Good Or Bad?, Does SACD ought to sound like crud?

96 kHz sampling rate
George, Watch this!!!....(96k) @George Massenburg, abstract in page 33

I'd wonder why songs are encoded from 16 bits / 44100 hz, while our ear can hear a difference with 96 khz/32bits and consumer sound cards can often do 48khz ? (if you can do better than rip from a CD, that is)

I mean, would 160 kbps sound better from 44100 or 48 / 96 khz ?

High definition digital audio

Do CD sound good enough ?
Theoretical discussion : 44 KHz (CD) not enough !? (Nyquist etc.), plethora of distortion frequencies?
Listening test : 96 vs. 48 or 44.1 kHz sampling --> scientific test, perhaps here is the 1. listening test !
Another discussion : Sound, the human ear, and the digital world

Why was 44.1 kHz chosen ?
48, 44.1 khz, why no and/or not 40 khz, Only for 2 channel audio...........

SACD/DVDA
Help! Sacd Good Or Bad?, Does SACD ought to sound like crud?

96 kHz sampling rate
George, Watch this!!!....(96k) @George Massenburg, abstract in page 33

I'd wonder why songs are encoded from 16 bits / 44100 hz, while our ear can hear a difference with 96 khz/32bits and consumer sound cards can often do 48khz ? (if you can do better than rip from a CD, that is)

I mean, would 160 kbps sound better from 44100 or 48 / 96 khz ?

High definition digital audio

Do CD sound good enough ?
Theoretical discussion : 44 KHz (CD) not enough !? (Nyquist etc.), plethora of distortion frequencies?
Listening test : 96 vs. 48 or 44.1 kHz sampling --> scientific test, perhaps here is the 1. listening test !
Another discussion : Sound, the human ear, and the digital world

Why was 44.1 kHz chosen ?
48, 44.1 khz, why no and/or not 40 khz, Only for 2 channel audio...........

SACD/DVDA
Help! Sacd Good Or Bad?, Does SACD ought to sound like crud?

96 kHz sampling rate
George, Watch this!!!....(96k) @George Massenburg, abstract in page 33

Recently I decided to use lame with cbr 192kbps after comparing to the preset vbr settings (including extreme). I use the settings: --cbr -b 192 -h -q0 Using vbr I can hear the noise floor being modulated e.g. by a large amplitude low pass filtered bass sound. I contribute this to vbr changing bitrate. Maybe the psychoacoustic model just doesn't fit my ears:-) The vbr files average around 200kbps anyway, so they're not smaller than 192kbps cbr.

Recently I decided to use lame with cbr 192kbps after comparing to the preset vbr settings (including extreme). I use the settings: --cbr -b 192 -h -q0 Using vbr I can hear the noise floor being modulated e.g. by a large amplitude low pass filtered bass sound. I contribute this to vbr changing bitrate. Maybe the psychoacoustic model just doesn't fit my ears:-) The vbr files average around 200kbps anyway, so they're not smaller than 192kbps cbr.

Recently I decided to use lame with cbr 192kbps after comparing to the preset vbr settings (including extreme). I use the settings: --cbr -b 192 -h -q0 Using vbr I can hear the noise floor being modulated e.g. by a large amplitude low pass filtered bass sound. I contribute this to vbr changing bitrate. Maybe the psychoacoustic model just doesn't fit my ears:-) The vbr files average around 200kbps anyway, so they're not smaller than 192kbps cbr.

Recently I decided to use lame with cbr 192kbps after comparing to the preset vbr settings (including extreme). I use the settings: --cbr -b 192 -h -q0 Using vbr I can hear the noise floor being modulated e.g. by a large amplitude low pass filtered bass sound. I contribute this to vbr changing bitrate. Maybe the psychoacoustic model just doesn't fit my ears:-) The vbr files average around 200kbps anyway, so they're not smaller than 192kbps cbr.

Yeah, they did. And 52 tests results were thrown out for ranking the ref sample, i.e., if you're deaf enough to not recognize the ref we shouldn't trust your other rankings. See the discussion at HydrogenAudio.

What about all the /.ers?
Seems they were just interested in wasting bandwidth after all

More than 500 people downloaded the samples through bittorrent only - not counting HTTP downloads! :B

I won't ever understand these people.

What about all the /.ers?
Seems they were just interested in wasting bandwidth after all

More than 500 people downloaded the samples through bittorrent only - not counting HTTP downloads! :B

I won't ever understand these people.

LAME developers themselfves discourage the use of CBR and I doubt you have done any ABX tests to back up your claim that 192kbps CBR sounds better than one of the VBR presets?!

according to this, 54 results was discarded because they ranked the reference file, instead of the encoded file. If flac was to be included in such a test, I'm sure it would have won, but im also sure it wouldn't have scored a perfect 5, even if it should have.

It is interesting that the note that they used the AAC encoder in iTunes 4.2 instead of the newer 4.5 because of "quality" concerns.

Apparently there's some "high frequency ringing" going on.

Better stick to something else for now, if planning to rip to AAC.

Hello. I'm the test conducer.

In this thread, the reasons why aoTuV was chosen over standard Vorbis are explained:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?showtopic=2 0389&

BTW: Please don't judge a project by it's web page or it's host ;)

Read these threads. Preparing Vorbis for the next multiformat test Vorbis Listening Test

Read these threads. Preparing Vorbis for the next multiformat test Vorbis Listening Test

Actually, no, these aren't those people.

These are people who do double-blind testing and who recognize that other so-called audiophiles are being silly when they buy ridiculously expensive power cables.

(On an unrelated side note, if any HA regulars are reading this, it was pretty much my fault that the previous test wasn't attributed to Roberto. I apologized to him as soon as I realized my error, but I'll apologize here once more just to be sure.)

The best replacement for r3mix.net in my opinion is HydrogenAudio . The forums are frequented by a lot of professionals, as well as developers of LAME, FLAC, Nero AAC, Musepack, Wavpack, and other codecs.

it's not 112kbps cbr, it's a preset for VBR encoding with lame that specifies a minimum of 112kbps (and a maximum of 320, the mp3 max) and joint stereo...

go read up on www.hydrogenaudio.org
(which seems to be down now?)

(er no it's sad that you're not using the tech. as well as you could). the lame documentation is out of date, contradictory and generally unreliable (unlike the LAME software itself). suggest you do some reading at hydrogenaudio.org.