Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: OGG vs. MP3? (Read 8369 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

OGG vs. MP3?

Hy!

I'm new to this OGG thing.

Anyhow, I got some songs in OGG format and their bitrate is 95 kbps.
To what bitrate of a MP3 is that equal?

OGG vs. MP3?

Reply #1 –
Hard to tell.
Something a little above that.
Depends how the mp3 you compare with was made.
128cbr perhaps.

OGG vs. MP3?

Reply #2 –
Impossible to say exactly. Are those encoded with rc3 or with very latest rc4 with -q switch (not -b), and not transcoded?
If so, you can expect the quality to be better than decent 128kbps MP3s, but MP3 quality depends very much on the encoder also.
Juha Laaksonheimo

OGG vs. MP3?

Reply #3 –
Hard to answer.

If it was originally a standard CD audio track, is neither incredibly easy nor incredibly hard to encode, and was ripped by someone competent who was using a recent version of the Vorbis libraries, then 95kb/s indicates that they used the '-q 2' setting.

You cannot say what bitrate MP3 this would 'match up' to, as there are many MP3 encoders, or greater and lesser ability. However, Vorbis is generally more efficient at low bitrates than MP3 encoders are, so I would expect it to correspond to a slightly higher MP3 bitrate.

The important thing is how it sounds to you. You need to care less about bitrate, and care more about quality.

OGG vs. MP3?

Reply #4 –
Can this info help?

length : 7:48
average bitrate : 91 kbps
file size : 5,360,934 bytes
nominal bitrate : 96 kbps
channels : 2
sampling rate: 44100 Hz
serial number: 18855
version : 0
vendor :
Xiphophorus libVorbis I 20011217

OGG vs. MP3?

Reply #5 –
Quote
Originally posted by Jon Ingram

The important thing is how it sounds to you. You need to care less about bitrate, and care more about quality.


That's what I want to know.

It sounds pretty decent to me.

OGG vs. MP3?

Reply #6 –
Quote
Originally posted by Jon Ingram
The important thing is how it sounds to you. You need to care less about bitrate, and care more about quality.
Good answer Jon! This was posted in another thread, and it's taken out of context, but these words of wisdom ring true in quality discussions:
Quote
Originally posted by Dibrom
And if you really want to be happy, then just "kick back" and listen to your music and stop watching the damn bitrate and filesizes.  Listen and judge the quality with your ears the way it's supposed to be done...
So the question is, Veky: How do these ogg files sound to you?

OGG vs. MP3?

Reply #7 –
Quote
Originally posted by layer3maniac
 
So the question is, Veky: How do these ogg files sound to you?


They sound like a mp3 at 128kbit.

But maybe a bit "blurry" or shallow.

OGG vs. MP3?

Reply #8 –
Quote
Originally posted by Veky
Can this info help?

length : 7:48
average bitrate : 91 kbps
file size : 5,360,934 bytes
nominal bitrate : 96 kbps
channels : 2
sampling rate: 44100 Hz
serial number: 18855
version : 0
vendor : 
Xiphophorus libVorbis I 20011217

They used the RC2 library using -q 2. I'd say it's comparable to an average 96-128kbps MP3.

OGG vs. MP3?

Reply #9 –
Xiphophorus libVorbis I 20011217 -> that's RC3

OGG vs. MP3?

Reply #10 –
Hmmm, ok, I'm back.

After a while I gotta admit, this OGG Vorbis is far better than MP3, at least for my type of music, techno,trance,rave,goa...

Sounds much better than a 160kbps MP3, it's more realistic and sounds more like the original.

:up:

I think I'll use it from now on.

OGG vs. MP3?

Reply #11 –
Quote
Originally posted by Veky
Hmmm, ok, I'm back.

I think I'll use it from now on.



Yay. Personally/crudely I tend to compare Oggs (RC3) and MP3 by adding ca  20 % to the bitrate. Ie 100 % Ogg would at least sound as good as a 120 % Mp3

OGG vs. MP3?

Reply #12 –
Well, I used to be satisfied with 192kCBR LAme mp3 for most of my music. Then I switched to VBR (After I managed a lame compile that wouldn't crash on VBR). I tweaked the settings out on that to my likings, I ended up averaging about 192kbps, but got better sound, and smaller files :-)

Then I switched to Ogg Vorbis rc2, it sounded a lot better to me, I can't remember what settings I was using.

now I use RC3 at Q=4.99. To me it compares very well with the tweaked out VBR mp3. To my ears RC3 4.99 is about equal to LAME VBR at an average of around 224.... And at Q 4.99 a lot of cds average 130-150 kbps..... So I have a considerable saving in size, and the Ogg format is so much more friendly and easy to use for me. But I don't have a portable player. But for burning, DJing, mixing, playing etc Ogg is really good. Plus the tagging rocks...

OGG vs. MP3?

Reply #13 –
I like Ogg, although I primarily use MPC for home use and MP3 (LAME w/ --aps) for my portable. The only gripe I have with Ogg is that it still doesn't "sound right" to me below about 160kbps. Whereas MPC seems to shift distortion to frequencies above what I can hear, Ogg seems to spread it over a wider band and soemtimes I get the impression that files sound "dirty", especially material with lots of HF content and panning from channel to channel. This seems to go away above 150-160kbps, and gets really bad below 128kbps. Because of this, I've stuck to MPC.

Am I just hearing things? (I'm a psychologist- in-training, so don't answer that  ). And no, I don't have ABX tests to back my statements up; my Thesis is time-consuming so I don't have time to do blind-testing on my own. Just thought I'd see if there is any empirical evidence out there to support my Ogg distortion theory.

OGG vs. MP3?

Reply #14 –
Quote
Originally posted by Speek
Xiphophorus libVorbis I 20011217 -> that's RC3


Hmm... Actually, RC3 was released on 2001-12-31.

OGG vs. MP3?

Reply #15 –
Quote
Originally posted by kjempen
Hmm... Actually, RC3 was released on 2001-12-31.

The 12-17 version and 12-31 version are both the same, IIRC.  Some binaries that were made right after RC3 was released were still marked as 12-17, but there's no difference.

Somebody slap me if I'm wrong, but I think I've heard this a few places.

OGG vs. MP3?

Reply #17 –
Quote
Originally posted by Cygnus X1
I like Ogg, although I primarily use MPC for home use and MP3 (LAME w/ --aps) for my portable. The only gripe I have with Ogg is that it still doesn't "sound right" to me below about 160kbps. Whereas MPC seems to shift distortion to frequencies above what I can hear, Ogg seems to spread it over a wider band and soemtimes I get the impression that files sound "dirty", especially material with lots of HF content and panning from c4hannel to channel. This seems to go away above 150-160kbps, and gets really bad below 128kbps. 


I tihnk you might be having problems with the lossy stereo. At q=5 ogg switches to lossless stereo. q5 is ~160kbps. So it may be not a problem of low bitrate, but more that your sensitive to the lossy stereo. Hopefully in RC4 lossless stereo will be selectable at any bitrate, that should hopefully help you out....

OGG vs. MP3?

Reply #18 –
Quote
Originally posted by redcane


I tihnk you might be having problems with the lossy stereo. At q=5 ogg switches to lossless stereo. q5 is ~160kbps. So it may be not a problem of low bitrate, but more that your sensitive to the lossy stereo. Hopefully in RC4 lossless stereo will be selectable at any bitrate, that should hopefully help you out....


It's not the lossy stereo as much as the elliptical line rotation used.  rc4 used an elliptical cardoid to deal with the 'side channel' information, and thus no longer adds brightness in the point stereo part of the image (which was intentional in rc3, but appears to have turned out as a misfeature).