Vorbis - Jul 2002 - mp3 quality vs Vorbis 1.0?

Many of you have read and my "introduction to compressed audio with
Vorbis"
and given me excellent feedback.  But with 1.0 about to hit the streets, I 
figured I'd freshen it up a bit.

[ http://grahammitchell.net/writings/vorbis_intro.html ]

In particular, it contains two paragraphs discussing the relative quality of 
Vorbis vs mp3 at a certain target bitrate.  These figures seem to be roughly 
accurate, but they were for the rc3 encoder.  Can you guys who've been 
playing with what we called "CVS RC4" weigh in with some subjective 
comparisons so I can update?

The original paragraphs:
> For example, a file encoded in the Ogg Vorbis format at quality 3 typically
> results in an average bitrate of 112 kbps but sounds better than an mp3 at 
> 128 kbps and often as good as an mp3 encoded at 160 kbps.
>
> For this reason, Ogg Vorbis discourages users from trying to achieve
certain
> bitrates when encoding and instead concentrates on sound quality. [More
> discussion on thinking "quality" rather than "bitrate"
goes here....]
>
> The default quality setting is 3, which should be fine for the average user
> since it gives sound quality better than a 128 kbps mp3 but is over 10%
> smaller. Someone wanting sound almost identical to a 128 kbps mp3 can
> usually get by with quality 2, which sounds as good but is 25% smaller.
Thanks for your help.  And props to the Vorbis crew for their hard work.  I 
look forward to ripping new stuff with 1.0!


-- 
Graham Mitchell - computer science teacher, Leander High School
"Programming is forty percent perspiration, ten percent inspiration,
and fifty percent having a computer tell you you're stupid."
	-- me

--- >8 ----
List archives:  http://www.xiph.org/archives/
Ogg project homepage: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/
To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to
'vorbis-request@xiph.org'
containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the body.  No subject is
needed.
Unsubscribe messages sent to the list will be ignored/filtered.

Graham Mitchell wrote:
> [ http://grahammitchell.net/writings/vorbis_intro.html ]
> 
> In particular, it contains two paragraphs discussing the relative quality
of
> Vorbis vs mp3 at a certain target bitrate.  These figures seem to be
roughly
My personal opinion is that it's simply not worth talking about MP3
anymore. ;P I made my personal tests at qualities/bitrates where neither
codec is transparent for me, and Vorbis scored much better every time.
My hearing isn't good enough to test stuff like that at higher settings
(i.e. -q > 3 or lame > 160 kbps). It's now that if you don't
really
_have_to_ use MP3 (because you want to release on mp3.com, for example
;P), it's simply stupid to use it. :)

To answer your question, i think -q 2 easily beats the average 128kbps
MP3. There might be some special cases, though. Ah yes, and please don't
take that too seriously, other people with other listening preferences
might think different. :P

<p>Moritz

--- >8 ----
List archives:  http://www.xiph.org/archives/
Ogg project homepage: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/
To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to
'vorbis-request@xiph.org'
containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the body.  No subject is
needed.
Unsubscribe messages sent to the list will be ignored/filtered.