IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
is Ogg Vorbis the best Lossy encoder? (what is?)
snadge
post Jun 8 2011, 04:01
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 32
Joined: 5-March 11
From: UK
Member No.: 88709



ive been trying to find out which encoder produces the best audio quality at similar bitrates (say 128k) to other lossy encoders - ive seen a couple of reviews and tests and they seem to point to Ogg Vorbis as being the better encoder - I encoded a WAV file to MP3, AAC, WMA & Vorbis all at 128k CBR and while it was hard to tell any difference the Ogg Vorbis was pumping out higher frequencies at 20Khz + and the rest were up to 18Khz (according to spectrum on Foobar2000)

the only gripe is during conversion Ogg Vorbis was the only one that didnt have the Tag info from the WAV file.

can anyone lead me to more listening test results and the likes so i can ascertain for myself? - i would like others views on "best lossy codec" etc

I read on Wikipedia that AAC at 128k is supposedly Transparent to the lossless source according to listening tests by M-PEG for ITU or something? - I was hoping to adopt AAC as my default rip codec as I have an iPod and MP3 player that plays AAC - but Iam in the market for a new media-player so all this is irrelevant as I can buy something to suite.

thanks in advance for replies smile.gif

please be gentle...im a noob at all this,

This post has been edited by snadge: Jun 8 2011, 04:17


--------------------
www.dslbuddy.net - Broadband Tech Support
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
SonicBooom!
post Jun 8 2011, 04:36
Post #2





Group: Members
Posts: 118
Joined: 16-February 11
Member No.: 88210



I hope I'll not get bashed for I am not truly an expert on this. I haven't tried Ogg Vorbis yet, but if I should choose between AAC (.m4a) and MP3, I would choose MP3. The main reason why is because I apply album gain on all my audio files. To apply album gain to an .m4a file(s), one will use AACgain but upon reading this (from http://altosdesign.com/aacgain/), I thought of reverting back to mp3:
QUOTE
"UNLIKE MP3GAIN, AACGAIN IS NOT COMPLETELY REVERSIBLE. THE UNDO OPTION IS INTENDED TO RESTORE A MUSIC FILE TO BE FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT TO ITS ORIGINAL STATE, BUT IT WILL NOT BE BIT-FOR-BIT IDENTICAL TO THE ORIGINAL FILE. IT IS POSSIBLE FOR APPLE TO CHANGE THE ITUNES MUSIC FILE FORMAT IN WAYS THAT ARE INCOMPATIBLE WITH AACGAIN, RESULTING TO CORRUPTED MUSIC FILES THAT CANNOT BE RESTORED TO THEIR ORIGINAL STATE."

I don't have enough free space on my hard disk to back up everything and time also for maintaining two identical files. To conclude, if you can discern the difference between an MP3/AAC/WMA and Ogg Vorbis by a matter of 2KHz, then go for Vorbis, but if not, then you have another dilemma on choosing which one of the remaining three to choose laugh.gif Goodluck!


--------------------
sin(α) = v sound/v object = Mach No.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
snadge
post Jun 8 2011, 04:58
Post #3





Group: Members
Posts: 32
Joined: 5-March 11
From: UK
Member No.: 88709



thanks for the info smile.gif

im glad you told me about replaygain as I use that also - so handy to bear in mind


--------------------
www.dslbuddy.net - Broadband Tech Support
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
terhardp
post Jun 8 2011, 07:10
Post #4





Group: Members
Posts: 14
Joined: 11-February 08
From: Croatia
Member No.: 51234



I'm saying this from my personal view, not based on scientific evidence.

I was in the similar dilemma recently. I was trying to decide which codec to use for 128 kbps VBR encoding for my iPod Nano 2G. Before I've discovered Rockbox, the obvious choice would be AAC 128 kbps VBR, even though I've read and seen some tests that show LAME V5 is not very far away in that range. But then I've installed Rockbox, which has stable version for my iPod now. Rockbox is great, it has numerious fancy features comparing to the original Apple firmware, but I thought it makes no much practical sense of using it if not using some format that the official FW doesn't support. So, after all the years of using FLAC, LAME and AAC exclusively, I've finally looked at OGG. I'm using the latest version of AoTuV, as I've read that this is optimized at lower bitrates. I've even did couple of ABX tests using the IEM's I'm using mostly with my Nano: Head-Direct RE0. Unlike most people, I treat my iPod differently: I don't listen it in noisy situations; quite the opposite. I'm using it to quickly get to my favourite albums, primarily for inspirational (as a musician and composer) as well as relaxation purposes. So, I'm concerned about transparency. I'm planning to do more testing in the future, but for now, I must say that I'm extremely happy how Vorbis performs at relatively low bitrates (Q4). I also think that the quality / filesize ratio is best for my purpose, given the somewhat limited space (8 GB). No, I'm certainly not a "hamster" when it comes to music, but I still have quite a lot of albums that I like to keep on handy.

The only thing about using Vorbis on my Rockboxed iPod I'm a bit sceptical about is the running time. According to what I've read on Rockbox's site and forums, OGG is rather memory intensive. But the running tests they've made are rather old now, and since both Rockbox and Vorbis are developing, I'm guessing that this isn't that big issue nowdays.

This post has been edited by terhardp: Jun 8 2011, 07:18
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
googlebot
post Jun 8 2011, 07:43
Post #5





Group: Members
Posts: 698
Joined: 6-March 10
Member No.: 78779



What is the best car?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Lorem Ipsum
post Jun 8 2011, 08:07
Post #6





Group: Members
Posts: 22
Joined: 8-April 10
Member No.: 79696



The Batmobile.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Cron
post Jun 8 2011, 08:10
Post #7





Group: Members
Posts: 19
Joined: 13-April 10
Member No.: 79827



QUOTE (googlebot @ Jun 8 2011, 08:43) *
What is the best car?

I'm sure choosing a car would be much more straightforward if all of them would cost $0, just like the encoders in question here.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
snadge
post Jun 8 2011, 17:32
Post #8





Group: Members
Posts: 32
Joined: 5-March 11
From: UK
Member No.: 88709



QUOTE (terhardp @ Jun 8 2011, 07:10) *
I'm saying this from my personal view, not based on scientific evidence.

I was in the similar dilemma recently. I was trying to decide which codec to use for 128 kbps VBR encoding for my iPod Nano 2G. Before I've discovered Rockbox, the obvious choice would be AAC 128 kbps VBR, even though I've read and seen some tests that show LAME V5 is not very far away in that range. But then I've installed Rockbox, which has stable version for my iPod now. Rockbox is great, it has numerious fancy features comparing to the original Apple firmware, but I thought it makes no much practical sense of using it if not using some format that the official FW doesn't support. So, after all the years of using FLAC, LAME and AAC exclusively, I've finally looked at OGG. I'm using the latest version of AoTuV, as I've read that this is optimized at lower bitrates. I've even did couple of ABX tests using the IEM's I'm using mostly with my Nano: Head-Direct RE0. Unlike most people, I treat my iPod differently: I don't listen it in noisy situations; quite the opposite. I'm using it to quickly get to my favourite albums, primarily for inspirational (as a musician and composer) as well as relaxation purposes. So, I'm concerned about transparency. I'm planning to do more testing in the future, but for now, I must say that I'm extremely happy how Vorbis performs at relatively low bitrates (Q4). I also think that the quality / filesize ratio is best for my purpose, given the somewhat limited space (8 GB). No, I'm certainly not a "hamster" when it comes to music, but I still have quite a lot of albums that I like to keep on handy.

The only thing about using Vorbis on my Rockboxed iPod I'm a bit sceptical about is the running time. According to what I've read on Rockbox's site and forums, OGG is rather memory intensive. But the running tests they've made are rather old now, and since both Rockbox and Vorbis are developing, I'm guessing that this isn't that big issue nowdays.


many thanks for that reply

I too was leaning towards OGG but then read about MPC... I dont know of any 'flavours' of encoders that are preferred...perhaps you can help? im using dbPowerAmp with lastest codecs installed - thing is ive run a short listening test and at 128k it sounds transparent (as does the 128k AAC Nero enc) but i noticed on Foobar spectrum eq analyser that when playing the OGG version there are frequencies being played that arent in the original.. I played the FLAC, AAC and OGG (AAC and OGG ripped from the FLAC in dbPowerAmp) and FLAC and AAC play 17Khz+ but OGG is playing frequencies 20Khz+ ...?? is this bad or good? I see some listening test reviewers saying ogg gives off a his and ive noticed in spectrum analysers in some tests that it has the best high end reproduction of the popular codecs... It must be related...the hiss people report, the added high end on my EQ etc..

can you advise of better 'flavour' encoders? whats difference?

I too have iPod Nano 4G 16Gb - I will have too look into this Rockbox thing

thanks again

This post has been edited by snadge: Jun 8 2011, 17:34


--------------------
www.dslbuddy.net - Broadband Tech Support
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
saratoga
post Jun 8 2011, 18:52
Post #9





Group: Members
Posts: 5167
Joined: 2-September 02
Member No.: 3264



QUOTE (snadge @ Jun 8 2011, 12:32) *
I played the FLAC, AAC and OGG (AAC and OGG ripped from the FLAC in dbPowerAmp) and FLAC and AAC play 17Khz+ but OGG is playing frequencies 20Khz+ ...?? is this bad or good?


Its neither.

QUOTE (snadge @ Jun 8 2011, 12:32) *
I see some listening test reviewers saying ogg gives off a his and ive noticed in spectrum analysers in some tests that it has the best high end reproduction of the popular codecs...


spectrum analyser results are meaningless. Don't waste your time.

QUOTE (snadge @ Jun 8 2011, 12:32) *
I too have iPod Nano 4G 16Gb - I will have too look into this Rockbox thing


Its a little late to ask about Vorbis then. Unless you're selling that player you're going to be using MP3 or AAC.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
smok3
post Jun 8 2011, 19:15
Post #10


A/V Moderator


Group: Moderator
Posts: 1747
Joined: 30-April 02
From: Slovenia
Member No.: 1922



if planing to rockbox, i would check battery eating state of codecs (maybe musepack can still do better than vorbis here?). On the other hand, Vorbis is well respected in open communities (think linux) if that is of any concern to you.


--------------------
PANIC: CPU 1: Cache Error (unrecoverable - dcache data) Eframe = 0x90000000208cf3b8
NOTICE - cpu 0 didn't dump TLB, may be hung
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
C.R.Helmrich
post Jun 8 2011, 19:45
Post #11





Group: Developer
Posts: 694
Joined: 6-December 08
From: Erlangen Germany
Member No.: 64012



@ snadge: regarding quality, have a look at http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=88023

Chris


--------------------
If I don't reply to your reply, it means I agree with you.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Xanikseo
post Jun 8 2011, 22:03
Post #12





Group: Members
Posts: 27
Joined: 14-April 09
Member No.: 68951



Regarding that link, it's only really useful for very very low bitrates. Once you get above ~96kbps, AAC and vorbis become more comparable. IMO I find that the few compression artefacts that vorbis produce at lower bitrates ~128kbps less "irritating" and "digital" than any AAC ones, so I use vorbis. However I don't really tend to use 128kbps, I use 192kbps since it is above what is generally considered transparent (160kbps), plus it is the bitrate at which lossless stereo coupling is used, so very very few artefacts would reach my ears.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Canar
post Jun 8 2011, 22:56
Post #13





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 3373
Joined: 26-July 02
From: To:
Member No.: 2796



QUOTE (Xanikseo @ Jun 8 2011, 14:03) *
However I don't really tend to use 128kbps, I use 192kbps since it is above what is generally considered transparent (160kbps), plus it is the bitrate at which lossless stereo coupling is used, so very very few artefacts would reach my ears.
At this bitrate, my codec of choice would be Musepack, but support is far from universal.


--------------------
You cannot ABX the rustling of jimmies.
No mouse? No problem.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
snadge
post Jun 9 2011, 13:43
Post #14





Group: Members
Posts: 32
Joined: 5-March 11
From: UK
Member No.: 88709



thanks for all the great replies...

so, do you think people are wasting storage space when they are using 200Kbps+...? as there are no audible differences?

I was thinking of Vorbis @ 170 VBR (.5)

does CBR have better dynamics than VBR on quieter sections of music? (should I consider CBR over VBR?)

thanks


--------------------
www.dslbuddy.net - Broadband Tech Support
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lvqcl
post Jun 9 2011, 13:49
Post #15





Group: Developer
Posts: 3468
Joined: 2-December 07
Member No.: 49183



Dynamics? What is it?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
snadge
post Jun 9 2011, 13:56
Post #16





Group: Members
Posts: 32
Joined: 5-March 11
From: UK
Member No.: 88709



QUOTE (lvqcl @ Jun 9 2011, 12:49) *
Dynamics? What is it?


have I got it wrong? sorry...noob... Dynamics I thought meant the audible range from low notes to the highest note you can hear? and VBR on quiet sections of music may be cutting out some higher frequencies that may be playing during that section giving it less 'range' where-as CBR would have that constant higher ceiling making the higher notes more audible?? - correct me if im wrong..im still learning

thanks

This post has been edited by snadge: Jun 9 2011, 13:57


--------------------
www.dslbuddy.net - Broadband Tech Support
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
snadge
post Jun 9 2011, 14:03
Post #17





Group: Members
Posts: 32
Joined: 5-March 11
From: UK
Member No.: 88709



QUOTE (saratoga @ Jun 8 2011, 17:52) *
QUOTE (snadge @ Jun 8 2011, 12:32) *
I played the FLAC, AAC and OGG (AAC and OGG ripped from the FLAC in dbPowerAmp) and FLAC and AAC play 17Khz+ but OGG is playing frequencies 20Khz+ ...?? is this bad or good?


Its neither.

QUOTE (snadge @ Jun 8 2011, 12:32) *
I see some listening test reviewers saying ogg gives off a his and ive noticed in spectrum analysers in some tests that it has the best high end reproduction of the popular codecs...


spectrum analyser results are meaningless. Don't waste your time.

QUOTE (snadge @ Jun 8 2011, 12:32) *
I too have iPod Nano 4G 16Gb - I will have too look into this Rockbox thing


Its a little late to ask about Vorbis then. Unless you're selling that player you're going to be using MP3 or AAC.


he iPod is actually going to my girlfriend and im getting a new player - i cant find any that play MPC files though as I was also considering this format.


--------------------
www.dslbuddy.net - Broadband Tech Support
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
pdq
post Jun 9 2011, 14:25
Post #18





Group: Members
Posts: 3450
Joined: 1-September 05
From: SE Pennsylvania
Member No.: 24233



QUOTE (snadge @ Jun 9 2011, 08:56) *
QUOTE (lvqcl @ Jun 9 2011, 12:49) *
Dynamics? What is it?


have I got it wrong? sorry...noob... Dynamics I thought meant the audible range from low notes to the highest note you can hear? and VBR on quiet sections of music may be cutting out some higher frequencies that may be playing during that section giving it less 'range' where-as CBR would have that constant higher ceiling making the higher notes more audible?? - correct me if im wrong..im still learning

thanks

Lossy encoders (at least any that I am aware of) do not change frequency response based on loudness. What they do is determine which components are more or less audible, and concentrate the available bits on the more audible sounds (at least this is a very simplified way of looking at it).

Yes, VBR uses less bits where less are needed, but where less are needed the encoded audio tends to be more true to the original, not less. CBR may use more bits than are needed, but that is not an efficient way to do it.

Also, dynamic range does not refer to frequency reponse.

Edit: typo

This post has been edited by pdq: Jun 9 2011, 14:25
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
DonP
post Jun 9 2011, 15:26
Post #19





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 1477
Joined: 11-February 03
From: Vermont
Member No.: 4955



QUOTE (snadge @ Jun 9 2011, 08:03) *
[
he iPod is actually going to my girlfriend and im getting a new player - i cant find any that play MPC files though as I was also considering this format.


As far as I know, your choices for an mpc player are either rockbox or more general purpose devices like android or palm
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Xanikseo
post Jun 10 2011, 01:00
Post #20





Group: Members
Posts: 27
Joined: 14-April 09
Member No.: 68951



QUOTE (pdq @ Jun 9 2011, 14:25) *
QUOTE (snadge @ Jun 9 2011, 08:56) *
have I got it wrong? sorry...noob... Dynamics I thought meant the audible range from low notes to the highest note you can hear? and VBR on quiet sections of music may be cutting out some higher frequencies that may be playing during that section giving it less 'range' where-as CBR would have that constant higher ceiling making the higher notes more audible?? - correct me if im wrong..im still learning


Yes, VBR uses less bits where less are needed, but where less are needed the encoded audio tends to be more true to the original, not less.

So true. When I see an album/song with a lower bitrate than the target bitrate, I am surer that it is being encoded well - that is, truer to the original. When the bitrate increases, it is a sign that vorbis is less able to encode as accurately, and therefore has to compensate by increasing the bitrate.

I think of VBR as a trick, to make a codec look better than it actually is. VBR means that all the moments in the music that the encoder can't encode well (due to the deficiencies of the design of the codec) can go to ridiculous bitrates to hide the deficiencies of the encoder. But to make up for all the space that has been wasted due to said deficiencies, it cuts back on the bitrate when the encoder comes to a part of the music that the codec can easily handle (where the codec was well designed/thought of). In the end, you have no idea that the codec was struggling to encode part of your file accurately because it all evens out, and you end up getting your target bitrate. Of course if the VBR algorithm itself isn't well designed, then the bitrate will not increase enough at the points where it is needed, and vice versa, and the deficiencies of the encoder are more noticeable. However vorbis has a very good VBR algorithm that has been tweaked a lot over the years by the likes of Aoyumi.

...So back to the point, you should be happy with parts of the file that go below the target bitrate, rather than unhappy.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
db1989
post Jun 10 2011, 01:30
Post #21





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 5275
Joined: 23-June 06
Member No.: 32180



QUOTE (Xanikseo @ Jun 10 2011, 01:00) *
QUOTE (pdq @ Jun 9 2011, 14:25) *
Yes, VBR uses less bits where less are needed, but where less are needed the encoded audio tends to be more true to the original, not less.
So true. When I see an album/song with a lower bitrate than the target bitrate, I am surer that it is being encoded well - that is, truer to the original. When the bitrate increases, it is a sign that vorbis is less able to encode as accurately, and therefore has to compensate by increasing the bitrate.
Quality setting being equal, from the encoder having to allocate more bits to encode a particular source file, it does not follow that the resulting lossy file is any farther removed from its source than is a file of a lower bitrate from its source. It simply means the encoder judged it required more bits to attain the same (approximate) quality. That’s the entire point of settings based on quality rather than bitrate, after all!

QUOTE
I think of VBR as a trick, to make a codec look better than it actually is.
Way off track, though there’s little point going into great depth (as if I even could!) when there’s bound to be plenty of documentation on VBR explaining its actual rationale. But in short: The best lossy encoder in the world would still benefit from a VBR model because all passages of audio are not created equal. It has nothing (necessarily) to do with inherent incompetence of either the encoder or its format as a whole.

QUOTE
But to make up for all the space that has been wasted due to said deficiencies, it cuts back on the bitrate when the encoder comes to a part of the music that the codec can easily handle (where the codec was well designed/thought of). In the end, you have no idea that the codec was struggling to encode part of your file accurately because it all evens out, and you end up getting your target bitrate.
Sounds like ABR to me, your aforementioned misconception notwithstanding.

QUOTE
Of course if the VBR algorithm itself isn't well designed, then the bitrate will not increase enough at the points where it is needed, and vice versa, and the deficiencies of the encoder are more noticeable. However vorbis has a very good VBR algorithm that has been tweaked a lot over the years by the likes of Aoyumi.
As have the VBR algorithms of all the leading audio codecs. Again, it has nothing to do with intrinsic deficiencies of lossy audio encoding. VBR just is logical given the heterogenous nature of most source material. It makes sense that end-users would prefer oscillating bitrate to disruptive changes in quality.

This post has been edited by dv1989: Jun 10 2011, 01:48
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
smok3
post Jun 10 2011, 07:10
Post #22


A/V Moderator


Group: Moderator
Posts: 1747
Joined: 30-April 02
From: Slovenia
Member No.: 1922



QUOTE (DonP @ Jun 9 2011, 16:26) *
QUOTE (snadge @ Jun 9 2011, 08:03) *
[
he iPod is actually going to my girlfriend and im getting a new player - i cant find any that play MPC files though as I was also considering this format.


As far as I know, your choices for an mpc player are either rockbox or more general purpose devices like android or palm

any recommended player software for android (htc wildfire s with a shiny new 16gig minisd card)? (preferably replaygain aware)

This post has been edited by smok3: Jun 10 2011, 07:24


--------------------
PANIC: CPU 1: Cache Error (unrecoverable - dcache data) Eframe = 0x90000000208cf3b8
NOTICE - cpu 0 didn't dump TLB, may be hung
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
DonP
post Jun 10 2011, 12:44
Post #23





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 1477
Joined: 11-February 03
From: Vermont
Member No.: 4955



QUOTE (smok3 @ Jun 10 2011, 01:10) *
QUOTE (DonP @ Jun 9 2011, 16:26) *


As far as I know, your choices for an mpc player are either rockbox or more general purpose devices like android or palm

any recommended player software for android (htc wildfire s with a shiny new 16gig minisd card)? (preferably replaygain aware)


I don't have anything android, but this list of programs supporting mpc has a couple of entries for android.

http://www.musepack.net/index.php?pg=pro
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
saratoga
post Jun 10 2011, 15:32
Post #24





Group: Members
Posts: 5167
Joined: 2-September 02
Member No.: 3264



QUOTE (smok3 @ Jun 10 2011, 02:10) *
QUOTE (DonP @ Jun 9 2011, 16:26) *
QUOTE (snadge @ Jun 9 2011, 08:03) *
[
he iPod is actually going to my girlfriend and im getting a new player - i cant find any that play MPC files though as I was also considering this format.


As far as I know, your choices for an mpc player are either rockbox or more general purpose devices like android or palm

any recommended player software for android (htc wildfire s with a shiny new 16gig minisd card)? (preferably replaygain aware)


On android, both rockbox or andless (which uses many of the rockbox decoders) support mpc.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
smok3
post Jun 12 2011, 11:02
Post #25


A/V Moderator


Group: Moderator
Posts: 1747
Joined: 30-April 02
From: Slovenia
Member No.: 1922



saratoga, andless is working with my old musepack files, however the gui is useless for vertical placement of the device (think car + navigation + music..), edit: rockbox is well, useless in a car..., ill stick with what poweramp can play (vorbis as well).

This post has been edited by smok3: Jun 12 2011, 11:23


--------------------
PANIC: CPU 1: Cache Error (unrecoverable - dcache data) Eframe = 0x90000000208cf3b8
NOTICE - cpu 0 didn't dump TLB, may be hung
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 27th December 2014 - 10:03