[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Audio CD questions

Am Donnerstag, 19. Juni 2003 14:42 schrieb Aryan Ameri:
> On Thursday 19 June 2003 16:42, Gabriel Meier wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 01:46:40AM +0200, Roberto Sanchez wrote:
> > > > Could someone point me in the right direction here?  Also, what
> > > > does everyone recommed for a preferred storage format (wav, mp3,
> > > > ogg)?
> > >
> > > If you care about quality, wav.
> > >
> > > If you also care about storage space, compress it with flac
> > > (free *lossless* audio codec).
> > >
> > > If you care about storage space more than quality, ogg.
> >
> > Incorrect! You will not be able to hear the difference between ogg at
> > 128 or even at 96 and wav. Try it out. I usually use ogg at 96. it is
> > same quality as mp3 at 128, but with smaller files. The quality of
> > wave is technically best, listening to it, you will not notice that.
> Incorrect! ;-)
> I am able to say the difference between ogg 96 and ogg 128. Not to
> mention the difference between ogg and wav. (ofcourse as someone else
> mentioned, you need high quality speakers or headphones to be able to
> do so. With a $20 speaker, mp3 64 and wav probably do not sound that
> different.

In fact, I didn't make a real test with vorbis 96 and 128. I just use ist with 
divx-films, and my onboard-sound isn't too good. there are quite few 
differences to the original, so it is realy good in this case.
Well, let's talk about hardware: Dynaudio Contour 1.1, cyrus 5, Marantz 
Original SE, Mogamie blue rocket, Sun audio wire transfer. This really is 
nothing like 20$ speakers. I may tell you, that I dint't buy these, just 
because I like to spend a lot of money. As a student of musics, I dont hear 
too bad.
Anyway, with vorbis 128 and wav, the differences were really rare. in most 
cases, i really couldn't tell, which one was better. When i tested the 
codecs, I did this over cd, just because i didn't want to use my soundcard. 
out of 10 files in mp3, vorbis and wav, i rated mp3 always worse, and 6 or 7 
wav best. of course, i rated blind. 
In a german computer magazine, there was a test, too. There were about 3000 
participants, and the results were quite similar. Some professionals as to 
balance engineers or producers also rated, with similar results.
ok, there are some few differences between the files, but i would recommend 
you, to make a test with some files, where you don't know what codec was 
used. if you already did so, and you rated wav 100% right - congratulations, 
and take care of your ears, they are something realy special!

> face it guys, ogg and mp3 are both lossy codecs. Between ogg and mp3,
> ogg is both more compressed and has got better quaility.

you see, mp3 has more information, but anyway worse quality.
If you really want to keep all audio information, what is not necessary in 
most cases, i would recommend something like shorten. i would discribe this 
as a special kind of zip file for audio. you won't lose any information this 


Reply to: