Forums | Search | Archives

All Forums  Cool Edit  Comparing MP3 and Ogg

Author	Topic
Cliff Sloane Posts: 11	Posted - Sun Feb 16, 2003 10:26 pm  Intrigued by some of the posts I have read here and elsewhere, I did a quick comparison of MP3 and Ogg Vorbis on the identical clip. I took a brief sample of Persian bamboo flute with handdrum, encoded it with Lame 3.93.1 and Vorbis version 1.0, then took three screenshots using Cool Edit's Frequency Analysis tool. The screenshots can be seen at http://www.asianclassicalmp3.org/MP3_OGG.htm I would appreciate any insight, criticism or commentary! If you want the actual sound clips, contact me at Cliff _________________
beetle Location: USA Posts: 2591	Posted - Mon Feb 17, 2003 12:35 am  I have yet to play around with Ogg Vorbis to see how it compares to mp3 in sound. Problem is, many Europeans prefer Ogg Vorbis, and most in the US know and prefer mp3. For that fact alone, using Ogg Vorbis is pointless to me, particularly because I don't know anyone outside of Sound Forge users that have the capability to read them.
Mark T Location: Norway Posts: 890	Posted - Mon Feb 17, 2003 1:30 am  Nail on the head there Beetle! If you want to publish on MP3.com then ya have to use......I would rather use Ogg but as long as all the places I download stuff from use mp3 it doesn't help what I want. _________________ Mark nil desperandum - nunc est bibendum
ozpeter Location: Australia Posts: 3200	Posted - Mon Feb 17, 2003 6:46 am  Inverting the original file against the data-reduced file can sometimes give you more of an idea of what's going on (by using your ears rather than your eyes). - Ozpeter
SoloTune Location: USA Posts: 194	Posted - Mon Feb 17, 2003 6:59 am  I just did a similiar comparison over in the MP3Car forum a few weeks ago. I made a mp3 and an Ogg of the British group Boa's song Duvet, and posted both versions. (With the bands permission, of course), the difference was dramatic. The Ogg file was hard to tell from the original, while the mp3 was not too far from unlistenable. There's no need to look at this on graphs or test equipment. Your ears will tell you which is better. Actually, I'm surprised that Cliffs graphs showed as big a difference as they did at the 192 Kbs rate. More and more people are switching to, or at least considering the format. And, there are even a few hardware music boxes that are incoporating support for the format. Solotune
beetle Location: USA Posts: 2591	Posted - Mon Feb 17, 2003 12:23 pm  SoloTune wrote: More and more people are switching to, or at least considering the format. And, there are even a few hardware music boxes that are incoporating support for the format. I assure you that most people in the US do not know what the hell Ogg Vorbis is. Availability and familiarity is more important here. It's a shame, though, that the lesser-sounding format is the dominant one.
Cliff Sloane Posts: 11	Posted - Mon Feb 17, 2003 12:58 pm  beetle wrote: SoloTune wrote: I assure you that most people in the US do not know what the hell Ogg Vorbis is. Availability and familiarity is more important here. It's a shame, though, that the lesser-sounding format is the dominant one. Among Microsoft users, you are undoubtedly correct. I never heard of it until a week or so ago, when I began researching audio programs for Linux. I have been toying around with the idea of "de-monopolizing" myself, and audio support was holding me back. That, and the frustrating difficulty of configuring hardware in Linux. Since then I have learned of a large number of programs written in open source mode that may make it possible for me to switch over. There is even a program (Gnome Wave Cleaner) that appears to do noise reduction almost as well as Cool Edit (that is, until I can get working in it). The programmers who responded to my inquiries were all total ogg vorbis advocates. Here is where Ogg has its only chance of making an impact. If Microsoft's licensing folly succeeds in pushing more people over to Linux, this will give Ogg the constituency it now lacks. It all depends on Microsoft shooting itself in the foot. I also learned in my "digging" on MP3 that not all MP3 encoders use the precise psycho-acoustic banding. Some, I read, do not use the Barkhausen bands but just divide the spectrum into 25 equal divisions. This is one area where I would like to learn about the Ogg algorithms and see what choices they made. It would account for some of the differences among MP3 encoders and between MP3 and Ogg. But then again, we may have the VHS-Beta dilemma all over again, in which the clearly superior format loses out. Cliff _________________ SoloTune Location: USA Posts: 194 Posted - Mon Feb 17, 2003 1:21 pm  beetle wrote: SoloTune wrote: More and more people are switching to, or at least considering the format. And, there are even a few hardware music boxes that are incoporating support for the format. I assure you that most people in the US do not know what the hell Ogg Vorbis is. Availability and familiarity is more important here. It's a shame, though, that the lesser-sounding format is the dominant one. beetle, you are correct. But I didn't say "most", I said "more and more". I base this on the number of music related forums I visit where Vorbis questions are on the rise. I actually had someone at work, who knows that I'm into audio and computers, ask if I ever heard of Ogg Vorbis. We had a nice "chat"! :D Cliff Sloane wrote: But then again, we may have the VHS-Beta dilemma all over again, in which the clearly superior format loses out. Cliff, this is so refreshing to hear. If you only knew how many times I argued that point back in the days when VHS was taking its hold on the market. ;) Solotune Craig Jackman Location: Canada Posts: 909 Posted - Mon Feb 17, 2003 1:58 pm  Is there an Ogg Vorbis convertion plug in that will work within Cool Edit though? I still have nightmare's about the days before I sprang for the CEP MP3 plug in, trying to make Right Click MP3 work in the world I was working in ... not to mention wwwwaaaaaiiiiittttiiinnngg for it to finish. _________________ Craig Jackman Production Supervisor CHEZ/CKBY/CIOX/CJET/CIWW Ottawa, Ontario, Canada Cliff Sloane Posts: 11 Posted - Mon Feb 17, 2003 2:23 pm  Craig Jackman wrote: Is there an Ogg Vorbis convertion plug in that will work within Cool Edit though? I found one here in the forums: http://www.btinternet.com/~jfchapman/files/cooledit_ogg.zip That is how I was able to make those cute screenshots! _________________ SoloTune Location: USA Posts: 194 Posted - Mon Feb 17, 2003 3:00 pm  hey Craig, as Cliff said, there are plugins to do this, but IMHO, while CE is great for wave editing, there are actually better devices for the wave-to-whatever conversion. I use AudioGrabber or EAC, for the chores of ripping or converting, but do the wave manipulation in CE. EAC is free, as are the mp3 and Ogg encoders, while AudioGrabber costs a nominal amount. I think its worth the money though. Solotune beetle Location: USA Posts: 2591 Posted - Mon Feb 17, 2003 4:01 pm  Yeah. But, most people who inhabit music sites on the net are more likely to be in tune with what is out there. The average mp3 pirate won't know/won't care. Cliff Sloane Posts: 11 Posted - Mon Feb 17, 2003 4:13 pm  beetle wrote: Yeah. But, most people who inhabit music sites on the net are more likely to be in tune with what is out there. The average mp3 pirate won't know/won't care. Beetle, you may be right, especially with those users who describe 128 bps CBR as "CD quality." If the majority of users are happy with that, superior formats have no chance. Personally, I am hoping for a Linux insurrection. Cliff _________________ beetle Location: USA Posts: 2591 Posted - Mon Feb 17, 2003 6:26 pm  Well Cliff, I don't believe Linux will ever take on Microsoft in popularity. It's too much for the public familiar and comfortable with Windows. Let's not forget that most applications people want are built for the Windows platform without fuss. I've just conducted my own compressed format tests with Ogg Vorbis, WMA, and mp3, all 128kbps. My conclusion? I prefer mp3, despite it's compression effects. The music just sounded the most natural out of the three. The other two destroyed the the natural decay and reverberrant space in the recording. Sorry Ogg Vorbis fans. In fact, the Ogg file sounded the same as the WMA file. As i've found that to be true, there's no need for Ogg Vorbis if you have WMA. My test source was "Crazy" by Patsy Cline from a country Time-Life CD. I figured the tape hiss on the track would help provide clues as to what the compression schemes were doing to the music. I also figured the decay on top of that hiss would prove to be difficult to reproduce. It seems to me that if you want a good sounding compressed file, no matter what the type, use a higher bit-rate. The other alternative is to use a lossless compresson scheme like Monkey's Audio or Sonic Foundry's Perfect Clarity Audio. Or, you could just work with the original .wav file! SoloTune Location: USA Posts: 194 Posted - Mon Feb 17, 2003 6:50 pm  Hey Beetle, I'm wondering, wouldn't a recording of Patsy Cline have been done back in the days when recording equipment would have been somewhat lacking in detail and overall fidelity. I just wonder how good of a source this would be for comparing these two formats. I'm not saying it couldn't have been, just wondering. I'm going to redo my own listening comparison and try to listen for the qualities you mention. I've also started playing with Ape files. With hard drive capacities being what they are now, and becoming greater, I wonder if the whole audio-compression thing will just go away. beetle Location: USA Posts: 2591 Posted - Mon Feb 17, 2003 8:08 pm  You would be shocked at just how superior a lot of recordings sound that were made from the 50s and 60s. Craig Jackman Location: Canada Posts: 909 Posted - Tue Feb 18, 2003 6:12 am  SoloTune wrote: hey Craig, as Cliff said, there are plugins to do this, but IMHO, while CE is great for wave editing, there are actually better devices for the wave-to-whatever conversion. I use AudioGrabber or EAC, for the chores of ripping or converting, but do the wave manipulation in CE. EAC is free, as are the mp3 and Ogg encoders, while AudioGrabber costs a nominal amount. I think its worth the money though. I work in radio production for a 5 station cluster. Cluster is a good word, and my workday can rapidly escalte into a cluster f*** depending on Sales and Programming demands and deadlines. I need and file conversions built into CEP ... like I said when I got the Syntrillium MP3 converter, that will convert a 30" wav to mp3 in 7" it was a very happy day. Having to create in one program and save in another is not worth the time in the way I need to work. Also, Monkey's Audio and Ogg may sound great, but it's likely that MP3 is the only conversion filter I'll be using for the forseeable future. You wouldn't believe the hassels I've gone through with both clients and other stations to accept MP3 as a standard format for transfering of finished audio for air use or client approval. As for Audiograbber, used it for years and love it to pieces. Fast, and generally transparent. EAC is always transparent, but takes forever and that's why I don't use it. _________________ Craig Jackman Production Supervisor CHEZ/CKBY/CIOX/CJET/CIWW Ottawa, Ontario, Canada ozpeter Location: Australia Posts: 3200 Posted - Tue Feb 18, 2003 7:05 am  You probably didn't mean it the way it came out, but Monkey's doesn't sound great - it's perfect, being a lossless compressor. I've tested it quite extensively and haven't yet found a single bit which didn't come back as per the original. (None of which detracts from the point you are making, however!). - Ozpeter VoodooRadio Location: USA Posts: 3971 Posted - Tue Feb 18, 2003 7:20 am  Quote: You would be shocked at just how superior a lot of recordings sound that were made from the 50s and 60s. Quote: My test source was "Crazy" by Patsy Cline Actually.... I'm not shocked at all!! Owen Bradley (who produced that particular track) was one of the greatest producers ever, who was instrumental in the creation of "Music Row" in Nashville. He was a hit song writer, a successful bandleader, a radio star and a talented keyboardist. He worked with Kitty Wells, Patsy Cline and Brenda Lee. He produced hits like "Crazy," "I Fall to Pieces" and Walkin' After Midnight" that are still the standard against which all female country records are measured today. Hit makers of that era had what alot of todays producers need......... TALENT!! _________________ I said Good Day! Voodoo beetle Location: USA Posts: 2591 Posted - Tue Feb 18, 2003 9:35 am  If you ever find a copy of the DCC gold disc of "Elvis 24 Karat Hits", you will hear 50s and early 60s recordings so spectacular that Elvis sounds like he's in the room in front of you. Remaetring engineer Steve Hoffman's trick? He called up the original engineer, Bill Putnum, and Putnum told him to simply reverse the EQ he applied to the master tapes so they would fit the vinyl format. Stupendously simple! I have done some more testing with mp3PRO and have decided that the extra treble boost it applies on PRO playback flattens the sound too much. The mp3PRO file sound good on non-PRO standard mp3 playback. My final solution is to stick with higher-bit mp3 and be done with it. zemlin Location: USA Posts: 1156 Posted - Tue Feb 18, 2003 10:11 am  beetle wrote: You would be shocked at just how superior a lot of recordings sound that were made from the 50s and 60s. What? ... Some old analog recording could be superior to this? you're kidding, right? _________________ Karl Zemlin - www.cheap-tracks.com Host of the World Wide Cool Edit Collaboration Procedural Debate VoodooRadio Location: USA Posts: 3971 Posted - Tue Feb 18, 2003 10:15 am  M.T. "Bill" Putnam Sr. was also Duke Ellington's personal favorite. Putnam also worked with Vic Damone and Dinah Washington. (amongst others) _________________ I said Good Day! Voodoo Satori Location: USA Posts: 1 Posted - Tue Feb 18, 2003 5:11 pm  Back on the subject of mp3 vs Ogg, I have to say that the users that hit my website by far prefer mp3. This is most likely due to the fact that most of them have never even heard of Ogg. In fact I moved all the Ogg files to a seperate download page because they just weren't getting hits. However I do agree that Ogg is vastly superior in sonic quality, it just lacks exposure.    Topic

Page: