Skip to main content
Topic: Simple mp3 vs. ogg question (Read 6249 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Simple mp3 vs. ogg question

What ogg vorbis bitrate (q setting) is comparable to an mp3 at 128 kps?

I want to find out how much smaller an ogg file is than mp3 - given the OGG would have the same perceptual quality of a 128k mp3... I'm guessing the ogg file would be about 70%?????

Simple mp3 vs. ogg question

Reply #1
-q3 (112kbps if I'm not mistakes) is supposed to be at least as good as an 128kbps MP3

--
GCP

Simple mp3 vs. ogg question

Reply #2
what ? only 16kbps smaller for the same quality ?

Simple mp3 vs. ogg question

Reply #3
Try it, and find out for yourself.

Unlike with WMA, we do not claim that 64kbit/s Vorbis is 'CD quality'.

Simple mp3 vs. ogg question

Reply #4
Depends on the material. In my opinion, -q 2.5-3.0 would be quite same quality with 128k MP3 in most music. Some pop tracks might sound adequate even with quality setting as low as -q ~1, but usually rock and metal tracks require some more bits (-q ~3).

Simple mp3 vs. ogg question

Reply #5
Quote
Originally posted by mphilamp
what ? only 16kbps smaller for the same quality ?


Okay! -q 1 (80 kbs) then. Happy now?

Simple mp3 vs. ogg question

Reply #6
Well actually what I wanted to know was which q setting was equivalent to 128k mp3, not which q setting is "CD quality" or "adequate", since the term "adequate" depends on the application (studio vs. portable etc.) - and we all know that mp3's and ogg's BOTH require more bits for classical music than pop...thanks...


Simple mp3 vs. ogg question

Reply #8
I don't think one can set any -q setting for Ogg Vorbis to have a perceived quality equivalent to 128kbps mp3... the types of artifacts that mp3 and ogg spit out are different. On some samples -q 0 (64kbps) sounds better for me because the artifacts ogg creates at this bitrate are easier to live with.

Simple mp3 vs. ogg question

Reply #9
Depends on what do you mean by "MP3". Ogg -q 2 or even -q 1 sounds better than 128kbps Xing (new and old). But if you mean LAME then the -q 2.0-3.5 range would be a better equivalent.

Simple mp3 vs. ogg question

Reply #10
Quote
Originally posted by mphilamp
what ? only 16kbps smaller for the same quality ?


Not really - Ogg tends to be conservative in the nominal bitrate it uses, so it's more likely that this would save 20kbps.  Still not what you're expecting, but some way there, and I'd say that a lower setting of -q2.5 would be about right.

Cheers, Paul

Simple mp3 vs. ogg question

Reply #11
I hate pop, i only tried some rammstein clipz and i say that vorbis 2.5 is way better that even lame 160kbps and even 2.0 is listenable cuz it handles artifacts well. Hmmm, so little aac hardware support and the increasing ogg lovers might make me to switch my prefered format...

Simple mp3 vs. ogg question

Reply #12
what ? only 16kbps smaller for the same quality ?

Ogg settings are not bitrate based but quality based, that means that for a same q, you will get a constant quality, but not necessary a constant bitrate. So some -q3 tracks may need many more kbp/s than 128 kbps.


Depends on the material. In my opinion, -q 2.5-3.0 would be quite same quality with 128k MP3 in most music. Some pop tracks might sound adequate even with quality setting as low as -q ~1, but usually rock and metal tracks require some more bits (-q ~3).


The same here: in theory, if the ogg encoder needs more bits to achieve the asked quality, it take them.

Simple mp3 vs. ogg question

Reply #13
So on the basis of the previous post (use more bitrates as needed), I understand you can't really compare OGG with LAME CBR mode..  since theoretically the highest bitrate used in a VBR mode would be the perceptual bitrate ... (meaning if the VBR mode bitrate varied between 100 and 160 Kbps, it would sound very close to 160 kps CBR)

so I guess I will have to compare to LAME -v option (VBR).

I realize how awesome VBR is now... how its the secret to reducing filesize without sacraficing perceptual quality (or increasing quality without increasing filesize, however you look at it)

Simple mp3 vs. ogg question

Reply #14
welcome to the true audio compression world of VBR

Simple mp3 vs. ogg question

Reply #15
In my humble opinion, Q1 (80 kbit) is better than LAME 128 kbit.

Simple mp3 vs. ogg question

Reply #16
The problem with this sort of comparison - OGG & MP3 - is that OGG is far from finetuned and not mature as a codec, while MP3 has far too many years behind.
LAME has been finetuned by Dibrom, who decided to create the '--alt-preset's.
If you pick out standard, I'd say it's comparable to OGG @ ~ -q6
but it's hard to tell, different kind of flaws in the sound. One must pick out what one fancies the least
I don't like either mp3 or ogg, but I'd definately choose ogg since mp3 is just old and primitive - Little use sticking around with mp3s IMO.
I use MPC, and I'm very happy with that. ยด

Cheers,
David

Simple mp3 vs. ogg question

Reply #17
OGG 80 Kbps - mp3 128-160 Kbps
OGG 128 Kbps - mp3 192+ Kbps

Simple mp3 vs. ogg question

Reply #18
If you wanted to save space (also fit more on your portable) then -q 4 would probably be a good option, it's not transparent but still sounds remarkable for ~128kbps

 
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2019