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: Comparing Ogg & MP3 in CoolEdit (Read 4673 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Comparing Ogg & MP3 in CoolEdit

Not being an expert, I'm not sure what (if anything) this means.

I recently encoded a pink noise WAV file using both Ogg RC3, and LAME.

I then loaded the resulting files in Cooledit to look at the frequency analysis, and compared them visually with the original WAV file.

With Ogg drop set at about 50% quality (roughly the same file size as fast standard), there was an obvious difference.

I was able to visually match up the peaks and valleys by comparing the Ogg file to the WAV file. Not so with the MP3. I finally made an MP3 at the insane setting. Still doesn't resemble the original file.

When I cranked Ogg up, it looked exactly like the WAV file. Hell, at 50% it was pretty damn close.

Does any of this translate to actual sound quality? I expect Ogg to be a bit better, but this was too much.

Now I feel really depressed that I just bought an MP3 player for my Explorer.

I guess it doesn't matter if I can't hear the difference, but I know it's there.

Is this type of comparison pointless?

Brett

Comparing Ogg & MP3 in CoolEdit

Reply #1
such comparison isn't useless, but the real point is how it sounds.  My guess as to why you found the visual difference so striking: a lowpass filter used by lame might create lower peaks than you'd find in the ogg files.  Not sure if this is what you're seeing.  But the real issue is, of course, how it sounds to you.  And ogg is generally quite a bit better than mp3 for sound quality at a given bitrate.

when you say that you bought an mp3 player, I assume that you are referring to hardware.  Ogg hardware support looks to be on the horizon.
God kills a kitten every time you encode with CBR 320

Comparing Ogg & MP3 in CoolEdit

Reply #2
Quote
Originally posted by timcupery
such comparison isn't useless, but the real point is how it sounds.  My guess as to why you found the visual difference so striking: a lowpass filter used by lame might create lower peaks than you'd find in the ogg files.  Not sure if this is what you're seeing.  But the real issue is, of course, how it sounds to you.  And ogg is generally quite a bit better than mp3 for sound quality at a given bitrate.

when you say that you bought an mp3 player, I assume that you are referring to hardware.  Ogg hardware support looks to be on the horizon.


I was seeing the differences across the entire band.  Yes, I bought a hardware MP3 player.

Now I know I am going to want a new one when there is Ogg support. Crap. Plus re-encoding everything. Crap crap.

I guess as long as it sounds good to me, what's the difference. Psychological, I suppose.

P.S. Another visual I notice. The WAV file and the Ogg file look smooth, whereas the MP3 looks kind of jagged in comparison.

Brett

Comparing Ogg & MP3 in CoolEdit

Reply #3
Such comparisons using graphs is not useless. It can tell you about how the encoder works, but doesn't really say much about quality.

It looks like Ogg Vorbis's clipping protection kicking in for this one. Hmm...

Comparing Ogg & MP3 in CoolEdit

Reply #4
Quote
Originally posted by brosselle
I then loaded the resulting files in Cooledit to look at the frequency analysis, and compared them visually with the original WAV file.
Well, you're not going to get lots of support from any codec devs regarding the use of visual comparison only. This is psychoacoustic audio encoding, and sometimes something that doesn't look right may sound much better than something that looks good.

By encoding and comparing just just noise (and worse, comparing visually), you miss so many possible potential psychoacoustic deficiencies that I wouldn't make any conclusions about codec's true quality.
Juha Laaksonheimo

Comparing Ogg & MP3 in CoolEdit

Reply #5
Quote
Originally posted by JohnV
By encoding and comparing just just noise (and worse, comparing visually), you miss so many possible potential psychoacoustic deficiencies that I wouldn't make any conclusions about codec's true quality.


I was actually hoping this was the case

Comparing Ogg & MP3 in CoolEdit

Reply #6
If you generate two separate pieces of noise, they'll sound identical (overall) and look different (overall).

You could take the same piece of noise, and process it in a way which didn't change the "look" much, but radically changed the sound.

So I wouldn't loose any sleep over it!

Anyway, always use your ears to test codecs. CE will show you things that you can't hear, and hide things that you can, whereas a good psychoacoustic codec is designed to trick your ears - but nothing else.

Cheers,
David.

Comparing Ogg & MP3 in CoolEdit

Reply #7
Quote
Originally posted by 2Bdecided
If you generate two separate pieces of noise, they'll sound identical (overall) and look different (overall).

You could take the same piece of noise, and process it in a way which didn't change the "look" much, but radically changed the sound.

So I wouldn't loose any sleep over it!

Anyway, always use your ears to test codecs. CE will show you things that you can't hear, and hide things that you can, whereas a good psychoacoustic codec is designed to trick your ears - but nothing else.

Cheers,
David.


Yeah. The only thing that bugs me is that the Ogg file looks identicle, no matter how many times you do it.

The MP3 never does.

Hmmmm.....

Comparing Ogg & MP3 in CoolEdit

Reply #8
Understand that I wasn't making excuses for mp3. What your tests suggest to you (that mp3 is worse than ogg) is probably true, but your test doesn't prove this.

However, if you grab some difficult-to-encode samples from
http://www.mp3dev.org/mp3/gpsycho/quality.html
and encode them in mp3 and ogg, you may be able to hear a difference in the performance of these two codecs at a given bitrate. A fair test includes comparing the coded versions with the original, and proving that you can hear a difference using:
http://www.pcabx.com/

Cheers,
David.