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 WMA9 (Read 3937 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

OGG vs WMA9

Hello. Does anybody know sound quality (dis)advantages of these audio formats? (smth like who's the king of the hill)

OGG vs WMA9

Reply #1 –
Well, Wma and Ogg are much alike.
Except WMA supports MetalFX™ technology, which automaticly transforms the music into a can.

Ogg cannot do that, it transforms the music into a CD-quality rip.

Can or CD-quality?

Pick one. 

OGG vs WMA9

Reply #2 –
Firstable, try to use the correct names. Ogg is just a container format like .mp4 or .avi.

I haven't tested wma9, but all the earlier versions have been, well, not very high quality. People say that wma9 is not much of an exception.

Vorbis can provide decent quality at mid/high bitrates. And very listenable/good results at lower bitrates, although Vorbis uses tricks like strong stereo collapsing at lower bitrates.
Juha Laaksonheimo

OGG vs WMA9

Reply #3 –
I have done some rather extensive testing of wma9, and my impressions are:

-CBR modes have not improved over WMA8; still suffer from "whistling" noises on attacks (drums, etc) and flanging

-VBR mode not much better until "VBR 75" (averages from 100-150kbps), and even then is easily trumped by Ogg, AAC, and LAME

-VBR mode, even at the highest settings, often drops "too low" and causes artifacts such as those mentioned above

-The "two pass" option for CBR and VBR doesn't really improve the sound much; all it seems to do is muffle some of the "whistling" noises in the files, but they are still evident

-WMA9 Professional sounds somewhat better, but will not play in portable devices (seems to have been modified from the original wma format)

In short, WMA9 is only decent at higher bitrates, where other encoders do a better job. IMO, Ogg Vorbis is much gentler on the ears at low bitrates, and is much more consistent in quality than wma. I really wish WMA had improved more at low bitrates (<128kbps), since all of my portable players will only play wma or mp3, not Ogg or AAC. Not yet, anyway.
 

OGG vs WMA9

Reply #4 –
Quote
Firstable, try to use the correct names. Ogg is just a container format like .mp4 or .avi.


Quote
OK, since only about half of the mail we get is about the name 'Ogg Vorbis', it's clearly time to karma-whore a popular subject and open this can of worms one more time.
Our "The Name Sucks!"/"The name Rulez!" mail ratio is about 50/50. Some of you have threatened to kill us if we change the name, some of you have threatened to kill us if we don't. So you're gonna hear what I think about it. I'm not going to waste the opportunity my minor fame gives me for a healthy round of peer-mockery.

<tongue-in-cheek>
<neeneer-neener>
I Like The Name. I Wrote the Software. The Name Stays.
</neener-neener>

But there's more to this story than 'nyah nyah'. The 'rename Ogg!' forces have provided me with some of my favorite mail ever. I recall fondly the guy who went on, in great detail, why 'Ogg Vorbis' sucks, and that I must adopt 'a cutting edge, truly kick-ass name like "FreeMP3"!!!!!'

As for 'Ogg Vorbis', I hadn't really meant the 'Vorbis' part to get tacked on. The name of the format is Ogg. Just Ogg. Vorbis happens to be the first codec. Had 'Vorbis' been perhaps one more syllable (like, say 'Sorensen'), we wouldn't have this problem. People would just call it 'Ogg' like God (that's me) intended. Of course, particularly obsessive people *do* occasionally say 'QuickTime Sorensen', but they don't get invited to parties much, and when invited, they are shunned. 'Course they're usually just arguing with the punch bowl so shunning is easy.

I don't want my users to be shunned at parties, so I'm gonna help you out here. Just call it 'Ogg'. Ogg is a good, simple, very satisfying word.

It makes a good noun, a better verb and can even be used effectively in a curse. It is a real word and contains no numbers. It has only two unique characters, making it simpler than mp3. It is only one syllable, making it shorter to say than mp3. If you still can't handle it, try reboot-reinstall.
</tongue-in-cheek>

Monty
xiph.org