Slashdot Mirror
What Sounds Better, MP3 or Ogg?
I've never been able to make a clear decision on the subject. These days I rip all my CDs to MP3 at 160kbs which means about 80 megs for a longer album. With a 100g drive on order ($220. I remember paying more then that for .1% of that space) disk space isn't really the defining issue, but that doesn't mean I'm gonna rip everything at 300kbs just because I can. I'm curious what people think sounds better, and what bit rates they find to be acceptable for both casual listening, and more picky listening. Don't forget to mention what sort of equipment your listening on so we know where you are
coming from.
I think oggs sound great but i am still ripping mp3s at 192 bits or better because they also sound great and everything i have is geared towards running them, (WinAmp, SoundBlaster Live, Creative Nomad Jukebox, nothing flashy) I think that ogg has what it takes to supplant mp3s in the future (better sounding compression and smaller filesize) and all that it lacks is maturity.
I don't know much about ogg, as I use mp3 for most of my music encoding. I've played around with various bit rates and finaly settled on what I felt was the best for me in terms of quality vs size.
I now encode all of my music at a variable bit rate 64-256kbps with lame. Lame 3.70 does a really good job of this and produces files (at least for the types of music I listen to) that sound very good. For the most part, they encode smaller than a 192kbps, as the average bit rate used is less. As a check, peeking at John Coletrane's Giant Steps, the average bit rate is right around 150. The bulk of my music averages between 160 and 192kbps.
The cool thing about vbr is that if the file needs more than that, is can use up to 256kbps to help make the harder to encode spots sound better. So I guess the worst case size you could get would be a song completely encoded at 256kbps (but I can't say that has ever happened).
I have a hard time telling these vbr 64-256kbps files apart from the orignal cd. Sometimes I can tell, but it is rare and difficult. However, IANAA (I am not an audiophile), so doing your own tests should help.
All of your standard tools should support vbr files. Xmms does a fine job. I did need to upgrade mpg123 to pre0.59s, however.
Anyway, consider vbr before you go straight to 300kbps.
This sig is false.
But if you do care about the actual sound, rip some tracks you like from different types of albums. Then, cut out one part of the .WAV file and encode it using different MP3 encoders and different bitrates. (Or, if you want to save time, use only LAME for MP3, because there's a near-consensus that it gets the best sound. Don't forget to try VBR.) Then encode it in OGG format, also at various bitrates.
Now, the important step:
Decode the OGGs/MP3s back to a .WAV file, and make sure you name your files so you know which is which. Now, ask your roommate to burn all these .WAV files on a CD in an order that will not be revealed to you. Also burn the WAV that never went through compression/decompression (see if you can identify it by sound). Now, get your best pair of headphones, go to your stereo with a pad of paper, play the tracks over and over, and take notes on which track sounds the best.
Only after you've decided which tracks sound the best can you ask your roommate which tracks were encoded with which method.
This is not hard to do, and absolutely necessary if you want anyone to take your opinion about encoder quality seriously.
spork
What I mean by this is, are you trying to be as true to the original recording as possible, or do you just want decent sound? If the former, you're trying to approach hardcore high-end audio and you don't want ogg or mp3. If the latter, then just go by what your ears tell you -- from everything I've experienced, the two formats are virtually indistinguishable on a standard speaker setup.
Second, you're playing said file from a computer or some kind of mp3 player. How good are your speakers/headphones? Do they have the range, presence, crispness, etc. that you want? How good is your player's line out and D/A converter? How noisy is your sound card? Hell, how much RF interference does your computer produce or induce in the sound card? If you want to be really anal, what kind of cables are you using to run to the speakers (or stereo)?
Ultimately, since you know that you're going with something that's not going to be totally true to the original, you just have to go with what you think sounds good. You have to remember, not all ears are created equal. Go by what's good for you.
Having said all that (and at the risk of contradicting myself), with -specific- songs I've noticed a difference between encoding at 128k and, say, 192k. This is especially true when listening with quality headphones. Classical music in general or music like Orbital in specific seem to sound better to me at 192k. After 192, I personally can't tell a difference. Your mileage may vary. I've listened to two identical classical pieces, one compressed at 128k and one at 192k, over a friend's hifi stereo and there was a difference in hearable elements and sense of presence. Over my lofi stereo there's no discernable difference.
So, of course make sure you take this with however much salt you desire. It all comes down to what sounds good to you, and what kind of sound setup you're using. As the question was stated, it's difficult to give an accurate answer -- and of course, even a "correct" answer may not necessarily apply to you.
Including this one.
- Jonathan
Yes, those things matter. And that's another factor in what format is "best". At the risk of sounding trollish, anyone listening to music via their computer is most likely not particularly concerned about sound quality.
:)
The S/N ratio of most soundcards is farily poor, especially compared to decent receivers.
Speaker wire and cabling makes a difference. No one agrees on how much, though
Speaker placement & seating position greatly impacts sound quality (e.g. stereo imaging).
Speakers play an obviously important role.
Finally, most people just arent' aware of, or don't care about, the actual sonic quality of stereo equipment. We just want something that sounds good to us.
Consider a previous poster, who loves his Bose speakers and Sony DE receiver. Home audio enthusiasts generally agree that the Sony DE line is definitely inferior to the higher DB and ES series. Likewise, Bose is generally known to be of lower sonic quality than other equivalently priced speakers. But he loves the setup, and that's the thing that matters.
Similarly, I've got a solid mid-range receiver (Onkyo 696) matched to low-end speakers (KLH bookshelf). Sounds great to me, but it's not really top-quality sound.
The encoder quality is just one of many possible limiters in sound reproduction. And if you're playing it through low-fi equpiment (e.g. computer soundcard and computer speakers), then just pick one that sounds decent and run with it.
ShoutingMan.com
I have done a >REAL3000$ stereo equipment (Van den Hul
cables, atacama stands, gold plated connectors
etc) to play 2 tracks in :
a) vorbis, 192
b) mp3, notlame, high quality VBR, stereo, 128-320, 195 kbps average
c) original wav file
The tracks were ripped from a superb quality
classical recording (I play the piano), from
DECCA.
I then had 3 of my friends compare the track
quality "blindly".
The difference between vorbis and mp3 is
immediately noticeable. Vorbis was found superior
by all the listeners. Some people had difficulty
telling vorbis from wav but they generally
tended to prefer the wav. (each one was
questioned individually)
Personally I find the difference quite striking
and was truly amazed!
This was an important finding for me, because
I make amateur recordings at home and I need
an easy means of archival (we are talking many
GB here, and I don't intend to fill my HD).
I decided to use vorbis at 350 for all my
archived recordings. (I also keep
cds).
I cannot say whether vorbis is also superior
in lower bit rates such as 128kbps.
Petros
I avoided WMA for years, since I was afraid of all the horrible things people were saying about it. I finally tried it, and at least to my ears, a 96K WMA sounds as good as a 160K MP3. OGG is about a wash vs. MP3, and it's not supported nearly as well, which gives me about zero reason to use it. I don't spend much time in Linux, which is pretty much the only area where OGG is better supported than WMA.
Which listening tests are you referring to? I'm pretty darned picky, and I can hear a difference. 96K is pretty bad on OGG and MP3, and very good on WMA, at least for rock music.
And I would urge everyone to do their own listening tests - I took the pepsi challenge, and WMA won hands down.
+5:offtopic,but anti-American
I emailed an mp3 radio station I once listened to and asked them to offer a vorbis stream. They responded and stated that they've looked into it (woohoo) because of mp3 licensing, but it would require a lot of time and work to switch over. They implied that they intended to switch over eventually however. A deluge of polite requests for vorbis streams would surely speed things up.
On a slightly different note, I recently purchased some hardware for which open Linux drivers were available. So I emailed the company and told them that the availability of free / open drivers was the deciding factor of my choice of their product over a competitor's (it was). We need to do everything we can to encourage and reward good behavior in hardware manufacturers. They do listen as evidenced by the parent.
I ripped the Playstation Descent soundtrack to .wav, and proceeded to encode it to mp3. Problem was, there was one track with a particular instrumental arrangement that my normal 160K MP3 (LAME) just mangled. I tried various mp3 codecs, all the way up to the max of 320Kbps, and couldn't get it to sound correct. Then I tried Ogg Vorbis just for fun. Even 96K Ogg reproduces it correctly.
;)
Not exactly a scientific comparison, but a valuable example none the less. I've found that mp3's biggest problem is that it will mangle certain patterns in certain songs. Chances are, if you picked a random song out of my 1000+ playlist, it would sound reasonbly good at 128, or even 112 or 96. But there's a few in there, just a handful, that require 160 to sound ok, and a few (as above) that even 320 can't save. Try encoding Metallica's (heh, irony) "Until It Sleeps" at 128 or lower. When the main riff kicks in, you should be moved to vomit by how awful it sounds. Try again at 160 and it should be ok. If you can't hear it, consider yourself VERY lucky
i became a fan of .ogg this summer, just because i thought it sounded better on my altec lansings. so when i came to school this fall, i couldn't resist challenging my audiophile next door neighbor/old roomate/good friend to test it.
.ogg, he made a 256k .mp3 with whatever encoder it is he prefers, and then we both decoded them back to .wav, and made a 3-track cd (the 3rd track being the song uncompressed).
.ogg.
i'd just gotten a wynton marsalis cd from amazon, so _carnival of venice_ was used as the testing track. i made a 256k
we did a blind test, kinda. put the cd in his player and set it on random. it was obvious that one track was better than the others (cd) and one was a lot worse than the others (mp3). the ogg sounded remarkably like the cd track, though there were some small things that allowed us to differentiate.
i'm not sure i'd be able to do so well on the same test using my computer speakers, of course. but the difference is certainly there.
test stereo setup:
CD Player: NAD 512
Integrated Amplifier: NAD 314
Speakers: Acoustic Energy Aesprit 300
Interconnects: Kimber Kable PBJ
Speaker Cables: Kimber Kable 4VS
of course, there are problems in the test in that we only tested one track, so the findings are only representative for the wynton marsalis genre. but it made me a fan of
i encourage everyone to try something similar and draw your own conclusions.
I'm the guy who wrote up a 'sonogram encoder study' using a pathologically impossible waveform to encode, and then measuring how much different mp3 encoders fell apart, and in what ways. Like r3mix.net, I wound up supporting LAME, but with some explanations for what people find compelling about Blade and Fraunhofer, respectively.
You also should know that people have been pestering me to add Ogg comparisons for _ages_, even wanting to send me the files I couldn't encode myself on an OS 8.1 Mac.
Well, there have been some changes at Airwindows:
And so, _yesterday_, I set about getting a preliminary look at Ogg Vorbis using sonogram analysis on my Encoder Hell test sound- put in half a day on it, and updated my site to include the new information. And today, guess what turns up on Slashdot? Spooky.
Now, I need to emphasise that the process wasn't exactly the same as last time- I had to include some 'control' sonograms using the same mp3s that I used last time (Frau 128 and Blade 320, strong but idiosyncratic performers of known characteristics) for comparison. It's preliminary, and I don't want to immediately go into a complete shootout again because (a) it's such an undertaking and (b) I'm not at all sure I'm using a current Ogg version here. That said...
Here is the result of this early look at Ogg Vorbis, and I think I managed to sort of exactly what Ogg is relative to mp3. Quotes from the final report:
That is, to my mind, a pretty strong endorsement, requiring only that high bit rates be used (as is intended) As such, I think Ogg will only become more relevant as bandwidth and storage space inevitably expand. It also is, in my professional opinion, very well positioned to keep mp3 in check- mp3 can only maintain its dominance by not getting carried away with licensing and IP abuses, because Ogg is sonically superior enough to be able to take over _if_ given the opportunity of a situation involving harsh mp3 licensing, given widespread use of higher bit rates rather than low ones. (This is why I dismiss WMA- it belongs to yesterday, an era of limited storage space and harsh licensing restrictions)
Now, about iTunes? I have some observations that I'd love to learn more about. Basically, I picked up iTunes because there's a patch making it possible to install on system 8.6, and I did that- only to be startled by a distinct difference in sound quality which I have the background to interpret. Briefly, it sounds like iTunes dithers its mp3 output to 16 bit, instead of truncating it.
A bit of background: any decoder, either mp3 or Ogg or whatever, is effectively synthesising a waveform from limited information. It's adding harmonics together to produce a linear PCM representation that's piped to the sound output hardware.
I suspect everyone making mp3 players has been simply truncating the waveform to 16 bit on the assumption that it's low quality anyway and doesn't matter... until iTunes... which has startlingly better dimensionality and depth than any other player I've heard.
However- there's no patent on the general concept of dithering. Some of the fancier ditherers and noise shaping algorithms are proprietary, but I happen to know many that are actually GPLed...
It's exciting to see the pieces of a truly superior free audio technology come together...
Anybody have a Dennon Test CD or digital equivilant? Anyone have a distortion anlyzer? Osciliscope? Spectrum display? Take a CD of some of the sine wave tracks (direct digital mastered) and encode them into the various formats. Check the results. I am interested in THD, S/N ratio, Jitter, and ailising frequencies. Anybody up to this and posting repeatable test results? Lets find out what the artifacts are on a 20 HZ bass signal as well a 440 HZ and 3 KHZ. I have part of the test equipment needed to perform the tests. My amp is rated at 0.005% THD which is below the capibilities of my test equipment to measure it.
The truth shall set you free!