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: -q0 in Ogg v1.0 different than RC3/4? (Read 3303 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

-q0 in Ogg v1.0 different than RC3/4?

Hi,

I just started listening and testing Ogg Vorbis (1.0) so have no experience with earlier versions like RC3 or even 4.

The only problem I have is that I am confused. I personally think -q0 sounds amazing where I only read bad report of -q0. These posts obviously stem from RC3 or 4 tests (I think) but am not sure.

So the question is: did -q0 (and up) change that much from the release candidates or should I go to the doctor to have my hearing tested?

On the side: I _do_ hear the problems in general (CBR) MP3 @128kb/s so I use LAME @ ~170 VBR. I hear _nothing_ that disturbes me in Ogg -q0!

Testing is done by extracting the compressed files back to raw audio and burn that to a generic audio CD and listen to that on my fairly good quality stereo setup.

I know it's not an ABX test, but who cares if I don't even hear the difference when I KNOW what I listen to?

Martin

-q0 in Ogg v1.0 different than RC3/4?

Reply #1 –
As a simple answer, yes, there are very significant quality improvements in the 1.0 low q settings compared to RC3 and other pre 1.0 versions.

-q0 in Ogg v1.0 different than RC3/4?

Reply #2 –
yes... it has been muchly improved at low bitrates, but at q0 it doesn't come close to the qualty of a 170VBR mp3. :eek:

-q0 in Ogg v1.0 different than RC3/4?

Reply #3 –
Ok, I must admit I've been a little uncarefull in my early conclusions about -q0.
I do hear artefacts at this quality setting, but they are very different from MP3@128 (the well known running of a brook in the highs).

That's why I thought -q0 was so good (and I still think it is!)

Now I guess I will stick to -q1 (a small step for man...) which is, sorry to tell _nearly_ indistinguishable from CD for me (or at least as good as Lame @ ~160vbr). Except for 1 classical piece I encoded, and even then I can only ABX it maybe for one very small typical part in the beginning.

No need to say I'm utterly impressed with Ogg and if it weren't for my portable I would have switched completely by now!

Martin