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: AAC vs OGG vorbis audio codec. (Read 12461 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

AAC vs OGG vorbis audio codec.

Hello, audio experts. greetings..
After experimenting w both AAC n OGG vorbis, encodings i was really enthralled by the audio quality. What do you think of the 2 codecs yourself?
Which do you think produces the top end audio quality.
I personally think OGG has really produced a better depth and surround from the original sound..

Please Vote... 8)

AAC vs OGG vorbis audio codec.

Reply #1 –
I personally prefer OGG Vorbis, but I can´t hear the differnce at higher bitrates (128KBit/s and higher), but at low Bitrates (64-96KBit/s) I think that Vorbis sounds much better, but it is your choice and you should use what you think sound better.

AAC vs OGG vorbis audio codec.

Reply #2 –
...for higher-bitrate quality.  AAC and ogg are good, but the consensus seems to be, as it has been for awhile, that for "transparent" playback - generally undifferentiatable from the original wav file - mpc will give it to you best, and at a lower bitrate.  Unless your ears are normal or average, in which case you're happy with 128 kbps mp3's, and then ogg would probably be your best bet.  Ogg is patent-free, open-source, and all that fun stuff, too.
God kills a kitten every time you encode with CBR 320

AAC vs OGG vorbis audio codec.

Reply #3 –
Welcome back, Tim!

How was Yosemite?

AAC vs OGG vorbis audio codec.

Reply #4 –
At higher bitrates, PsyTEL is much more tuned than Vorbis is right now.  PsyTEL handles some of the more difficult samples I have (especially the pre-echo inducing ones), better than Vorbis does.

At lower bitrates (sub 128kbps), Vorbis is probably equal or superior to most AAC codecs.

As Timcupery says though, if you want general transparency at around ~160kbps or so, then MPC is probably the codec to go with.  MPC's other advantage (over AAC) is that encoders/decoders/utilities are generally easier to obtain and work with than AAC (as far as the end-user is concerned), due to AAC's restrictive licensing nature.

AAC vs OGG vorbis audio codec.

Reply #5 –
I haven't seen the benefits in quality of MPC over AAC at any bitrates really...  Hopefully AAC will rival OGG at lower bitrates with the next release
< w o g o n e . c o m / l o l >

AAC vs OGG vorbis audio codec.

Reply #6 –
Quote
Originally posted by Mac
I haven't seen the benefits in quality of MPC over AAC at any bitrates really...


It's usually pretty evident on electronic music in my experience.  Of course, it's present on many other samples as well.  Most of them are what would be considered "difficult" though.  If you just compare any old average sample, pretty much all 3 of these encoders will sound transparent at a decent bitrate.  It's the special cases, when the encoders are really stressed, that shows which encoder is able to pull ahead of others.

Quote
Hopefully AAC will rival OGG at lower bitrates with the next release


This probably isn't too likely unless someone comes out with a publically available AAC encoder with a good IS implementation at low bitrates.  Of course, they AAC SBR stuff would help also, but I don't think that's going to be present in any available encoders (PsyTEL) for quite some time still...

AAC vs OGG vorbis audio codec.

Reply #7 –
What are the plans of Vorbis Team for next months?
"Taking a jazz approach and concentrating on live playing, I wanted to use several different rhythm sections and vintage instruments and amps to create a timeless sound that's geared more around musicality and vibe than sonic perfection. The key was to write with specific rhythm sections in mind, yet leave open spaces for soloing." Lee Ritenour

AAC vs OGG vorbis audio codec.

Reply #8 –
Could someone post a wave sample that is hard enough for MPC to pull ahead on?
< w o g o n e . c o m / l o l >

AAC vs OGG vorbis audio codec.

Reply #9 –
Quote
What are the plans of Vorbis Team for next months?

The core coders will work on Theora (Ogg+VP3+Vorbis)

There will be some work on ultra low bitrate and high bitrate tuning.

AAC vs OGG vorbis audio codec.

Reply #10 –
does ogg support 5.1 channels

AAC vs OGG vorbis audio codec.

Reply #11 –
Quote
does ogg support 5.1 channels

Yup, i think ogg even suport 255 separate channels ( correct me if i'm wrong )
Made in Portugal

AAC vs OGG vorbis audio codec.

Reply #12 –
Quote
Could someone post a wave sample that is hard enough for MPC to pull ahead on?

all of the traditional 'problem' samples qualify.  ie. fatboy, castanets etc.

AAC vs OGG vorbis audio codec.

Reply #13 –
I prefer PsyTEL AAC from ~100 to ~160 kbit... Vorbis is okay for bitrates under 100 kbit if you like to save a lot of space... MPC is preferable over 160 kbit if you ask me... Last but not least, I prefer lossless (FLAC) for anything over ~300 kbit...

AAC vs OGG vorbis audio codec.

Reply #14 –
I think that AAC produces the highest quality sound (it has the best pre echo control as well, which to me is a _VERY_ important part of the sound quality). Except for low bitrates, at low bitrates OGG wins, currently  i'm waiting to hear AAC+ which will have much higher quality low bitrate sound than regular AAC.

AAC vs OGG vorbis audio codec.

Reply #15 –
Quote
Posted on Sep 24 2002 - 08:00 PM  I think that AAC produces the highest quality sound (it has the best pre echo control as well, which to me is a _VERY_ important part of the sound quality).

Comparing to MP3 and OGG, of course? MPC is still better on pre-echo, IMHO.

AAC vs OGG vorbis audio codec.

Reply #16 –
Actually you are right. I've tested MPC with braindead preset against AAC with archive preset and MPC wins. I'm not sure about the sound quality though. I'll have to test stuff.

AAC vs OGG vorbis audio codec.

Reply #17 –
hehe, the argument of it works better on fatboy doesn't entice me much.  I'll test it on what I've found to be the hardest stuff I've seen to encode, my own music.  Am I right thinking a track with very narrow frequencies (eg anything below 700hz and above 2000hz is digital silence) is hard to encode, because there's less space to put artifacts in?
< w o g o n e . c o m / l o l >

AAC vs OGG vorbis audio codec.

Reply #18 –
I'll post a *GREAT* wav file for you people to test pre echo. I'll trim parts from Emmanuel Top's track "Tone" from 1995. An... Acid, club, or whatever you wanna call it music.
Gonna be ready in.. 40 minutes or so.

AAC vs OGG vorbis audio codec.

Reply #19 –
Quote
hehe, the argument of it works better on fatboy doesn't entice me much.  I'll test it on what I've found to be the hardest stuff I've seen to encode, my own music.  Am I right thinking a track with very narrow frequencies (eg anything below 700hz and above 2000hz is digital silence) is hard to encode, because there's less space to put artifacts in?

Firstly I think the term "digital silence" is only valid in time domain. But I understand perfectly what you mean, so don't worry...

Secondly, I think that it should generally be easier to encode a narrowband signal. That's why all encoders (except blade and some of its relatives) use lowpass filters.

AAC vs OGG vorbis audio codec.

Reply #20 –
OK. The pre-echo test file can be downloaded from here.  (w00t)
Oh, and if you're not able to extract WinRAR 3 RAR files, simply change the file's extension to exe.

AAC vs OGG vorbis audio codec.

Reply #21 –
and if you can't run .exe's?
(time to break out wine)

AAC vs OGG vorbis audio codec.

Reply #22 –
Oh shit redcane .. I forgot about that...

So... should i upload a zip file for linux/etc users as well? Or is it not really necessary?..

update: OK, i've updated the page. Now there's a zip file included as well.

AAC vs OGG vorbis audio codec.

Reply #24 –
Quote
OK. The pre-echo test file can be downloaded from here.

Do you know what pre-echo is? The echo is added by the encoder, in files like castanets.wav this is rather obvious.

Your file is full of echo from the beginning, so it's quite the opposite from what I would call a good pre-echo test sample.

I just made a quick test with ogg -q 4 and 6. While the former is easy, the latter is already quite difficult (for me). I ABAed it (6/8, p-val=0.02), but not listening to echo but analyzing the background noise.

I'm suspecting that you hear something in the encoded files which is already in the original.