Can you provide a song that shows off Ogg's superiority to Mp3?

[Wedge]

First up, I'm not questioning Ogg's superiority over Mp3 so don't flame me.

I want to encode a song with both, but I want to do so with a song where I can DEFINITELY hear the difference.

I have tried "Only Happy When It Rains" and "I Think I'm Paranoid", both by Garbage. For Lame I have use cbr 192 and also the --alt-preset standard. I get wonderful results with either of these combinations.

Then I encoded them using Ogg at quality 5 and quality 6 and again, quality is great with both.

Maybe I just don't have the ears for this, but thus far I have detected no DEFINITIVE difference. Maybe the difference is so subtle that only the best ears can hear it.

I'm about to archive my music and I need to decide which way to encode. Each method has its pros and cons but I think bottom line with me will be quality.

 

[MurderOne]

i think testing these formats at very high bitrate is not really go show you anything.

the performance test you really want to be looking at is filesize in relation to quality.

i haven't used ogg vorbis so i cannot tell you anything about it. i saw a comparison somewhere between mp3pro, mp3 and ogg but all the tests were done at 128. it said that ogg sounded more synthetic then mp3 at this bitrate.

with mp3pro it seems they are claiming you can produce just as high quality sounds with half the available bits, hence smaller file size. i have a psychological block on this because i don't like storing audio at anything lower then 192kb MP3 so to me trying to remove even more information and retain quality seems unlikely. sure, it sounds good but at what cost. is mp3pro at high the file size really gonna replicate a decent 192kb MP3?

and what happend to the infamous VQF format? that seemed to die a quick death.


the real test i think is to use both at variable bitrate between 92 or 60 and 192+ and see what kind of file sizes you get. can your ears hear a small or signficant difference and is the extra compression worth it?

I believe MP3 is gonna be best quality or equal at larger bitrates cos it isn't trying to throw so much away.

 

[Wedge]

poko thanks again. Interesting article, I learn more each day.

I have heard it for myself now (no, not just reading the article).
I went ahead and tried the new winamp because I wanted to listen to an mpc file as well as an ogg for compaison to an mp3. Got the dfx plugin. Got the mpc plugin as well: OMG !!!

It's not just a bunch of hype. Musepack is definitely THE lossy compression.

But since I wanted to compare Ogg with Mp3 as stated in the subject line I have to confess that with my setup (my speakers, soundcard, winamp, and whatever else is involved) Mp3 sounds inferior to Ogg and it's not difficult to tell the difference at all.
And I'm comparing with an mp3 encoded at --alt-preset extreme [VBR ~ 256] so we are not talking about a shabby mp3 here. I have read elswhere that mp3s at their best quality are on par with Ogg but that simply isn't my experiece today. The mp3 doesn't sound bad, but there is a difference.

I was having trouble making the distinction whenever I compared mp3 and ogg in Windows Media Player. When played in Winamp it's another story altogether. Now I see why Winamp is quite popular as well. I never thought Windows Media Player was bad, but Winamp (with my setup--gotta emphasize that point cuz everybody's is different) Winamp walks all over WMP. I'm sure that many out there will say that Winamp sounds like crap or that Windows Media Player is better than Winamp, but this only goes to reinforce the point that everybody's hardware setup/configuration is different. I'm just posting my personal experience.

So now I'm wondering, do I want to archive my cds at mpc files or ogg files??

 

[noman68]

yup...


ps:
there exists some papers on future hardware support on mpc...
the format itself is very promising to portable player-
producers.. espesialy after the SV8 work.. is final..


>the speed of sound<