POLL: mp3 vs. ogg

[sharkeeper]

Don't start with a CD in the first place, it is already quite poor in quality. Any form of compression is already going to degrade the sound and if the original is poor to start with, the output is going to be even worse. Garbage in garbage out.

That said, it is very possible to start with a medium that is superior to cd and encode it properly so the output is smaller than the same track on a CD and sounds better.

I posted a thread about this a while ago. Encoding is critical, it's the foundation of your output. There's a lot of really bad ones out there.

Cheers!

 

[Derango]

At lower bitrates( Less than 128kbps for say, streaming internet radio), ogg vorbis blows away mp3. The difference is much less noticable at the bitrates most people encode stuff at though.

..Which someone already said. Whoops, didn't notice that on my first read through

 

[Gurck]

I compared a few 192kbit oggs to 192-256 vbr lame mp3s (same songs) and regardless of genre the oggs sounded noticeably better to my untrained ears, with more overall clarity & openness. Was especially noticeable comparing drums, imo. Using Senn hd280s fwiw. Now I have a sh*tload of reencoding to do

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: sharkeeper
Don't start with a CD in the first place, it is already quite poor in quality. Any form of compression is already going to degrade the sound and if the original is poor to start with, the output is going to be even worse. Garbage in garbage out.

That said, it is very possible to start with a medium that is superior to cd and encode it properly so the output is smaller than the same track on a CD and sounds better.

I posted a thread about this a while ago. Encoding is critical, it's the foundation of your output. There's a lot of really bad ones out there.

Cheers!

16/44.1 = poor quality?

 

[sharkeeper]

16/44.1 = poor quality?

Yes it is in many ways. Compared to analogue archives it is very grainy and has poor resolution. Of course if you're just listening to pop, it doesn't matter much!

Cheers!

 

[pulse8]

http://delphi.scholz.dk/articles/vorbis_vs_mp3/

 

[pulse8]

Originally posted by: sharkeeper

16/44.1 = poor quality?

Yes it is in many ways. Compared to analogue archives it is very grainy and has poor resolution. Of course if you're just listening to pop, it doesn't matter much!

Cheers!

What major recording artists still record on analogue anyway?

 

[sharkeeper]

What major recording artists still record on analogue anyway?

Well most don't and they don't record at 16/44.1 either. 16/44.1 exists because it's the domain that was created over twenty years ago when CD's were born. It's akin to x86 and will be around for a while.

People will buy players and recordings capable of higher fidelity as long as they can still play their CD's.

Cheers!

 

[kuk]

I love my oggs at 64kbps ... perfect when dealing with limited storage, such as the 32MB card on my Tungsten E. Sometimes I'll even go to lower bitrates, achieving 2.23MB for a 7m45s song at 40kbps. Definately not the same thing, but still acceptable.

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: sharkeeper

16/44.1 = poor quality?

Yes it is in many ways. Compared to analogue archives it is very grainy and has poor resolution. Of course if you're just listening to pop, it doesn't matter much!

Cheers!

OK, let me rephrase that to be more accurate:
16/44.1, the real article, no loss, is poor quality compared to a higher quality medium, when encoding to reach the same basic file size in a lossy format when compared to the higher bitdepth and/or sampling rate version (assuming same master up to the point where it becomes 16/44.1)?

 

[Staples]

Never even heard ogg before but I can say that both WMA9 and AAC are better than MP3.

 

[pulse8]

Originally posted by: sharkeeper

What major recording artists still record on analogue anyway?

Well most don't and they don't record at 16/44.1 either. 16/44.1 exists because it's the domain that was created over twenty years ago when CD's were born. It's akin to x86 and will be around for a while.

People will buy players and recordings capable of higher fidelity as long as they can still play their CD's.

Cheers!

I was just asking because you compared 16/44.1 to analogue archives.

 

[Gurck]

Originally posted by: Cerb

Originally posted by: sharkeeper

16/44.1 = poor quality?

Yes it is in many ways. Compared to analogue archives it is very grainy and has poor resolution. Of course if you're just listening to pop, it doesn't matter much!

Cheers!

OK, let me rephrase that to be more accurate:
16/44.1, the real article, no loss, is poor quality compared to a higher quality medium, when encoding to reach the same basic file size in a lossy format when compared to the higher bitdepth and/or sampling rate version (assuming same master up to the point where it becomes 16/44.1)?

Agreed, but who the f*ck has access to 2" reels? (besides you) CD damn well better be good enough for most of us, because it's the best most of us can get. Unless someone's feeling generous... *nudge nudge wink wink*