Ogg beats all in listening test @ 128kbps

[seadzz]

Actually Vorbis aoTuV (latest version of Ogg) is tied to Musepack at first place, Lame MP3 is tied to iTunes AAC at second place, WMA Standard is in third place and Atrac3 gets last place.

here is the link to Hydrogenaudio

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/index.p...howtopic=21904

Confirms what we already suspected....AAC stinkos at 128kbps=iTunes downloads. Also wma is a poor stepchild....wma= CD quality @ 128kbps...right, the check is in the mail!

Here is the link to get the aotuV Ogg Vorbis codec (use at Q 5 or lower).

http://www.rarewares.org/files/ogg/o...3aoTuVb2P4.zip

sdz

edited for link

[mboy2004]

Hi Seadzz,

So is this latest version of OGG considered CD quality at 128kbps.

Whats the reason you recomend to encode at Q5 or lower, I'm confussed ?

Cheers,
Mick

[Big D]

Originally Posted by mboy2004

Hi Seadzz,

So is this latest version of OGG considered CD quality at 128kbps.

Whats the reason you recomend to encode at Q5 or lower, I'm confussed ?

Cheers,
Mick

The test is not comparing to CD quality. It is a comparison of the different codecs at 128kbps.

The reason AoTuVb2 is recommended for q5 and lower is because the current recommended encoder above q5 is Garf's Gt3b2 encoder, which was tuned for higher bitrates.

[FlameGrilled]

A billion tests proves crap all, since the only thing that matters is finding a balance between compactness and quality for whatever format you use - if space/storage is a sensitive matter.

As far as quality goes - whatever gives you the results you need, allowing the encoder to allocate as it needs to regarding the content. If you are happy with the results as you get them.. noone else's two-penneth over whats sounds best at xxx kbps is highly redundant.

Look at it this way - if you were listening to a netcast, a classic bit of narrowband encoding, you could choose not to use it because the quality is poor and that's fair comment. But to then make your decision to listen on the basis of what codec is used and which sounds best at the kinda bit-rate used, is being a bit AP over something that you can take or leave as it suits you.

There are so many elements to encoding, reasons for doing things in popular ways and unorthodox ways, that this testing to work out which encoding sounds best at xxx rate is getting way past of being any real value - just a bunch of codec audio devotees doing their quasi-audiophile bit time and time again.

[seadzz]

I have to agree with ya FG. This test only proves that people with nothing better to do picked that version of ogg to sound better than other codecs at 128 kbps. There is nothing implied that at 128 k this or any other codec sounds CD-like.

The results are meaningless in any other context.

Since to my ears every codec sounds like a walkietalkie at 128 I have elected something a bit higher for my own personal use (-q8 ogg, aprox 256 kbps vbr)

jmho

sdz

[FlameGrilled]

I figured we'd both see it in a similar light, Sdz...

As you say, you know what you can tolerate due to comfort.. found a working solution (on a quality basis by your own needs) and when with that route.

God knows, if spent as much time doing that obssesive ABXing that the contributers and organisers of those tests seem to do, i'd have no life outside it...

Maybe they don't have lives beyond their listening..?? :P

It's not beyond probability that a 128K encoding that's acceptable to most for most mainstream content will emerge in time - but if it does happen, it'll be dead from the beginning due to the daily-reinforced 'one 128k encoding is crap therefor all 128k is crap' mentaility. But even if it does happen, if the results dont suit personal needs... it's redundant.

[winty]

I completely agree with you FG. I do, however, wish that one codec would arise as the conclusive winner in all tests. I don't think it helps anyone (except the online record stores) for so many codecs to be vying for attention.

What I mean is that I'd switch to Ogg right now if everyone else agreed to do the same, and I could guarantee that in future my DVD/Car CD player/phone/walkman would all be able to play Ogg.

For me, ANY scaleable codec will do. So long as I can ramp up the quality until I'm happy, I don't care which codec it is.

[mboy2004]

I must admit I had a look at that site and the people there seem to be overly obsessed, although on the other hand it's probably these people who help develop such good formats?

I'm not sure I could enjoy a tune if I was continually worried about how it sounds, seems to defeat the purpose somehow.

I think my best option is wait till I have my H140 a set of decent headphones and then i'll decide on what format I'll go with through some testing.

Thanks for the comments.

[XavierGr]

Speaking for Ogg Vorbis....?
Which is the most famous rip setting for ogg files? And which is the best codec for it?

[divad6719]

AAC stinkos at 128kbps=iTunes downloads

Hee hee seadzz, do I detect a bit of bias there.
0.something something of a difference hardly qualifies as a "stinko" especially at 128kbps.
Considering that most of the iTunes music stores competition only offer WMA (does anybody offer aotuV Ogg Vorbis ) I would say that is pretty good.

[jelly]

I completely agree with you FG. I do, however, wish that one codec would arise as the conclusive winner in all tests. I don't think it helps anyone (except the online record stores) for so many codecs to be vying for attention.

What I mean is that I'd switch to Ogg right now if everyone else agreed to do the same, and I could guarantee that in future my DVD/Car CD player/phone/walkman would all be able to play Ogg.

For me, ANY scaleable codec will do. So long as I can ramp up the quality until I'm happy, I don't care which codec it is.

I agree with you, i eneded up using mp3 for most of my files, as then i know that it should be supported in the future, despite its shortcomings for audio quality.

[seadzz]

Hee hee seadzz, do I detect a bit of bias there.
0.something something of a difference hardly qualifies as a "stinko" especially at 128kbps.
Considering that most of the iTunes music stores competition only offer WMA (does anybody offer aotuV Ogg Vorbis ) I would say that is pretty good.

IMHO the only time 128kbps makes any sense is for streaming audio on websites. To pay Apple via iTunes or Walmart for WMA is nuts to me. I would much rather spend a few more dollars. pounds or whatever and buy then rip the actual CD. This way I select the codec and bitrate and it now sounds the way I want...not the way someone else thinks I should have it sound.

As of today June 12, 2004 all codecs stinko at 128 kbps....some sinko less than others but they all stink when used in DAP's as far as I am concerned. In the HA test others agree that there is a seperation of stinko-ness...some stink more or less than others at 128kbps.

sdz

[divad6719]

As of today June 12, 2004 all codecs stinko at 128 kbps....some sinko less than others but they all stink when used in DAP's as far as I am concerned. In the HA test others agree that there is a seperation of stinko-ness...some stink more or less than others at 128kbps.

Mmm, I don't know. I agree with you about buying the CD but as for the stinko-ness of 128kbps when used with DAP's that's more of a grey area.
Considering that a lot people use 128kbps and listen to their music in a noisy environment (Planes, Trains and Automobiles) with rubbish headphones I don't think the stinko-ness really factors in the equation at all for most. Especially at the minute differences of stinko-ness that the HA crowd throw-up (pun intended).

Unless it's for us sad individuals seeking perfection of course.

[Skeeve]

I just can't understand why they'd spend so much time doing testing like this at 128k mark, surely anyone who is fussy enough about such small differences would be using a higher bitrate and those who aren't just won't give a damn about the results

Personally, i'll stick with mp3s done with lame since they don't clobber my battery life and don't take up too much space.

[FlameGrilled]

For ferks sake, how many times do i have to remind people that judging a performance by saying, in a blanket fashion, that xxx kbps is rubbish and yyy kbps is good.

You cannot, ever, take 100% of all audio and define one even a close group of rate ranges that give good or superior reproduction (for lossy audio purposes) regardless of input.

The only way to get the optimal level quality encoding, is to allow the encoder to use whatever bitrate per frame it needs - you only restrict it to keep file sizes down (DAP and archive purposes) or to suit a bandwidth restriction.

There is a lot of audio that sounds good at 128k, given a decent sample of audio to start with (i.e no modern crappy quick-win audio engineering), and plenty that dont sound right.. but a slighty boost on the 128k avg figure can make all the difference. Some literally wont sound decent at any low-range encoding rate (low range - narrow band).

Who really is gonna be finding a life or death destruction of their listening experience if they encode at 128k and people tell them they are using an un-optimal codec at that rate..??

Very few, in practise, would really care - and good for them.. as it's only really people with too much time on their hands who do this kinda testing for amatuer interest.

I wish i could spend time putting together an equally pointless test and watch the HA and other groups waste more time on pointless perpertual 'for the sake of it' testing, but i got better things to do.. and more respect for the short time we all have on this god forsaken existance..

In other words.. get a grip.. and do what works for you.. and say ferk it to all this bloody pointless 'for the sake of it' testing.

[divad6719]

In other words.. get a grip.. and do what works for you.. and say ferk it to all this bloody pointless 'for the sake of it' testing.

I don't think it deserves to be called pointless, in fact I think it's quite interesting to see how lossless codecs are evolving in comparison to each other.
Obviously these people enjoy doing what they are doing so why knock them ? sure they get a bit stroppy and righteous sometimes but the same could be said of any group of enthusiasts.

Considering that the fundamental nature of the players being discussed in this forum is also lossy codecs, I think their results are quite relevant.
Some people like the warm fuzzy feeling that they get when using a codec that has been tested by others and found to be good.

It's no more pointless a hobby than train/ aircraft spotting or stamp collecting and if it gives them and others some satisfaction then good luck to them.

Anybody who wants to should feel free to use these results/ information if they so desire, my one caveat would be not to let it overshadow the enjoyment of your music (which is the whole point in the first place).

[FlameGrilled]

My point re : pointless, is referring to the ever-obsessive nature of the 'lets invent a test' nature of the way they are testing.

All testing, to some degree, is far from pointless in varying degrees. It's the reasoning behind some it that's kinda grey and lacks a bit of real-world definition.

I mean, and this is what really kicks me about these 'net' tests ... :-

Noone's asking what the walkman/discman users (i.e. those who dont ever, to date, make a move to lossy digital compression) is looking for in the way of quality.

If the people who want to indulge in persistant tests fancy losing their 'obssesive AP wannabes' rep with me, all they gotta do is focus their testing on finding the most practical element of finding good solutions that will both make discman/walkman-only users take some notice..

In doing so, they'll actually de-alienate the geeky nature that mp3 & lossy DA trends follow and if you want to find a perfect cue - look at what Sony did with MD and hence Atrac - that's a real example of making compressed audio idiot proof without making it 'geeky'.

So, if these people who do the testing worked harder to 'de-geek' their ideals of their testing, they'd earn a heck of a lot more respect for their efforts.

I'm still a die-hard who sides with the reluctant borderliners (those borderliners are a mass market who noone's trying to approach.. and we are talking multi-millons off potential customers there) who will eventually go compact DA.. when it suits their ideals of idiot-proof simple and has more than one choice of MD or 'geeksville'.

[coreman]

Well, my 2 coppers worth is that I am sticking with MP3 because that is the only format that I am guaranteed will play on all DAPs and any DVD/CD players will play encoded music.

Regardless of tests like this, MP3 is still the world standard and that is worth something to me.

Under LAME APS, I can't tell the difference between it and the source track so it doesn't matter to me how other codecs perform...none can (or should) sound better than the actual source track.

Now this may change when I start converting vinyl over....

[molex]

I use 128kbps mp3 which works fine with me for about 90% of my music.
But like FG suggested to me a while back I've decided to stick with it and if I come across something that sounds bad at that bitrate, I'll re-encode from the original.
Luckily, apart from about 20 songs on my player, either myself or my brother own the CD. So I've started carrying a note book around and writing down songs which I think may need re-recording. In a few weeks I'm back to the family ranch for a bit of a rest between working and uni. If I do decide to re-encode, that’s when it's going to happen. At least it'll give me something to do.
But the best advice is not to get hung up on what sounds good to others.
Hell, Abba sounds good to some of my friends! Just proves we all have different ideas on what is audibility pleasing.

[divad6719]

And just what's exactly wrong with Abba ???? :P

"Oooh Waterloo, how does it feel now you've won the war dada dada dada"

Class

[Fluidity]

Flac is best :P well as long as you have a 160 gig DAP it is!