In my efforts to convince people to hear how good Vorbis is when compared to MP3, I'm gonna be encoding tracks from my CD collection to both formats, then writing them to audio CD, so people don't have to install extra software to hear the difference. Has anyone got some suggested specs for the options for MP3 encoding when using CDex or Chun-Yu's MP3 writer for winamp (preferably in VBR mode MP3 for easier comparison) <p>--- >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.
> > Has anyone got some suggested specs for the options for MP3 encoding > when using CDex or Chun-Yu's MP3 writer for winamp (preferably in VBR > mode MP3 for easier comparison)Use LAME(lame.sf.net). Its the best MP3 encoder around(at least in my experience). It supports multiple encoding modes(including VBR) and can be used with CDex. --- >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.
Martin Blackwell wrote:>In my efforts to convince people to hear how good Vorbis is when compared >to MP3, I'm gonna be encoding tracks from my CD collection to both >formats, then writing them to audio CD, so people don't have to install >extra software to hear the difference. >Has anyone got some suggested specs for the options for MP3 encoding when >using CDex or Chun-Yu's MP3 writer for winamp (preferably in VBR mode MP3 >for easier comparison)In the last year in october, i have objected here the worse high frequencies response from ogg. It produces much too high frequencies at normal bitrates. Since then, i have not seen any improvement in the software. No new version was released since then. MP3 do not have this problem. I'am still using lame. My mail last year had started some discussion, but it ended with no result. Here this mail: >Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2002 20:32:02 +0200 >To: vorbis@xiph.org, vorbis-dev@xiph.org >From: Frank Grotelueschen <fgro@gmx.de> >Subject: [vorbis] high frequencies response > >Hi there > >In the past, i have used lame to encode high quality mp3-files >(vbr 1, bitrate ~ 192kbit). I tend to switch to ogg with Quality 4 >or 5, but i noticed, that many ogg-files tend to produce too much >high frequencies response. In many cases, this is very noticeable. >For my opinion, i cannot accept this worse frequence reponse. >I have used latest version of ogg (OggEnc v1.0, precompiled binary). > >To demonstrate this, i have made a short sample: >http://home.t-online.de/home/520022073876/highfreq.zip >The length is 2MB. > >It includes the original wav-file (5sec length) and ogg-files from >quality 0 up to 10. This effect is very noticable from q0 to q4, >it is then reduced more and more from q5 up to q10. >Quality 10 sound ok, the frequence response is flat. But the >filesize is much too high for using it. > >I hope, this can be fixed in a further version of ogg. > >Sorry for crossposting in vorbis@xiph.org and vorbis-dev@xiph.org, >but i don't know which list is the better place for this topic. > >Frank Frank --- >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.
> Martin Blackwell wrote: > In my efforts to convince people to hear how good Vorbis is when > compared to MP3, I'm gonna be encoding tracks from my CD collection to > both formats, then writing them to audio CD, so people don't have to > install extra software to hear the difference.To make them actually hear a difference and not say "it sounds all the same", you'd need relatively low quality/bitrate settings. How about ~112 kbps, which is still fair for MP3: lame --alt-preset 112 oggenc [-q 3] (the -q 3 is optional, since it's the default quality) Using anything but lame --alt-preset would be unfair towards MP3, imo. <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.
What i should have said is what mp3 settings should i use to compare with each q level of audio. I plan to be using q-1, q3, q5 and q10- i had lots of fun playing people a 128kbps mp3 and the ogg transcoded to q-1. Not much difference in percieved audio quality, unless you sat there and listened several times with really nice speakers. I'm going to be using wa2 to make the oggs and the mp3s, and since the plugin written Chun-Yu is the only mp3 writer that i've downloaded so far that doesn't mess up the resulting mp3, it'd be helpfull if someone could suggest what options to use. it uses LAME 3.88. I highly doubt using a different version of LAME would make a difference, since MP3 just sucks as much ass as the dyson owned by a person with strange sexual tendancies anyway. orry for the confusion. <p>--- >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.