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: Efficiency (Read 5243 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Efficiency

Reply #1 –
Quote
I took a 192Kb/s CBR MP3 (LAME). 
I encoded it to 100% VBR MP3 (MusicMatch). 
I encoded both MP3 files to Ogg 500Kb/s VBR (dBPowerAmp) 

Results (average bitrate): 
MP3 192Kb/s is 192Kb/s, converted to Ogg is 379Kb/s. 
MP3 100% is 116Kb/s, converted to Ogg is 367Kb/s. 

It seems to be that these two ogg files should be MUCH smaller. Conclusion, Ogg is being very inefficient.


This guy should be on Slashdot...

Efficiency

Reply #2 –
I took a VW Passat Diesel, fueled it once with Diesel and it used 6 litre per 100km, then I fueled it with Super 98 and it used 70 litre per 100km and took me 2 hours to get the engine running.

Efficiency

Reply #4 –
Quote
I took a 192Kb/s CBR MP3 (LAME). 
I encoded it to 100% VBR MP3 (MusicMatch). 
I encoded both MP3 files to Ogg 500Kb/s VBR (dBPowerAmp) 

Results (average bitrate): 
MP3 192Kb/s is 192Kb/s, converted to Ogg is 379Kb/s. 
MP3 100% is 116Kb/s, converted to Ogg is 367Kb/s. 

It seems to be that these two ogg files should be MUCH smaller. Conclusion, Ogg is being very inefficient.


That was the highlight of my day, remember kids add this to your list of things **NOT** to do. I could probably make a better comparison with my eyes closed hehe.
budding I.T professional

Efficiency

Reply #5 –
Quote
And, it appears to me that Ogg does NOT have quality settings per se. What it has is Average Bitrate settings that are passed off as quality settings. So, at a given quality setting instead of getting a larger file with a harder-to-encode audio track, you just get a lower quality file.


Someone kill him please :mad:

Efficiency

Reply #6 –
There's lUsers everywhere, let's just laugh at them (preferably in their face)

I came across this idiot yesterday.

Efficiency

Reply #7 –
Quote
Originally posted by eloj
Do you put (A) in (2) to create a new first generation copy, or do you run your old copy (B) through (2) to get a second-generation copy? 

Well do ya', punk?

Harsh. I *like* it.

Efficiency

Reply #8 –
Quote
Originally posted by Coolin


Someone kill him please :mad:


Any Don Quichotte's available to clear a few things up there?

--
GCP

Efficiency

Reply #9 –
now he's insisting that ogg vorbis doesn't have quality settings, it has avg. bitrate settings passed off as quality settings...

Efficiency

Reply #10 –
Quote
And, why isn't the rehuff functionality built into Vorbis v1.0?


Try reading the rehuff webpage for starters
Sven Bent - Denmark

Efficiency

Reply #11 –
Strange,
I did the following experiment:

I took a 192Kb/s CBR MP3 (LAME).
I encoded it to 100% VBR MP3
I encoded both MP3 files to Ogg 64Kb/s VBR (oggenc)

Results (average bitrate):
MP3 192Kb/s is 192Kb/s, converted to Ogg is 61 Kb/s.
MP3 100% is 116Kb/s, converted to Ogg is 62 Kb/s.

It seems to be that these two ogg files are MUCH smaller. Conclusion, Ogg is being very efficient.

Efficiency

Reply #12 –
Hmmm....

Strange,

I did the following experiment:

I took a .wav file, renamed it with an .ogg extension...

Conclusion:  Not only is ogg the same size as original, it doesnt play.  No compression, no sound.  What's all the fuss about ogg?
Yeah, when you call my name
I salivate like a Pavlov dog...

Efficiency

Reply #13 –
Quote
I took a 192Kb/s CBR MP3 (LAME). 
I encoded it to 100% VBR MP3 (MusicMatch). 
I encoded both MP3 files to Ogg 500Kb/s VBR (dBPowerAmp) 

Results (average bitrate): 
MP3 192Kb/s is 192Kb/s, converted to Ogg is 379Kb/s. 
MP3 100% is 116Kb/s, converted to Ogg is 367Kb/s. 

It seems to be that these two ogg files should be MUCH smaller. Conclusion, Ogg is being very inefficient.


then later i discovered this revolutionary format called vqf...

altho it took me 10x longer to encode the vqf, the bitrate ended up as 96, or even 80 kbps.

wow this format is good, or so i thought...

then i found out about mp3pro, and i discovered it promised the same quality at half bitrate, so i took the vqf, decoded to wav, encoded to mp3pro at 64kbps..

wow this is awesome... now i have a 192kbps file and its now 64 kbps...

then i saw an add for microsoft's latest and greatest called wma... it promises same quality at half bitrate too, but it was microsoft so i trusted it more than this vqf by some company called yamaha...

anyhow i decoded that amazing mp3pro file (kinda hard because it still had the .mp3 extension) and encoded it to a 32kbps wma.

boy was i proud of myself.

anyhow i decided this was enough space saving and efficiency, so i burned the wma to a cd and played it on the way to work in my diesel powered, but fueled by super 98 volkswagen passat.

to my surprise the song sounded HORRIBLE... i guess my cd player is broken... so in my quest for efficiency, i threw the cd player out the window along with the cd (who needs the cd when i have this high quality space saving 32kbps wma) because i figured less weight ==  saving fuel.

i hope everyone is proud of me for saving fuel and the environment, as well as hard drive space...

i think i'll write a book about this some day...

ill be sure to post when the first copies come out.

Efficiency

Reply #14 –
OMG!! What have I been doing wrong?? Why am I on this board?? This board spreads lies...

**RoFL**

Where do this people come up with these experiments? If you can call that an experiment, oh wells what a weird and wonderful world we live in .

Spase: When your finished give us all a holler  Would make an interesting read .

Cheers
AgentMil
-=MusePack... Living Audio Compression=-

Honda - The Power of Dreams