similar to: Comparison between Ogg Vorbis and LAME

To answer questions which I got on my e-mail inbox: 1. I don\'t have the tests on the web page, mainly because they take too much space, both the graphs and the wave files. But anyone with an Aquarium CD (Aqua) can replicate the tests by ripping the first 30 seconds of Doctor Jones. I\'m trying to organize my information to compile a kit in order to run the tests efficiently.

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

I use "jack" for my ripping, changed a few things here and there to get the "right" switches for oggenc. I reported a wishlist item to it's author to make the defailt -q instead of specifying bitrate. So for the time being he has set it to -q5, without the ability to specify quality on the command line, like bitrates for mp3. -q5 sounds high to me. He said it should be at

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

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

Hi! I am very pleased with the progress that Ogg is making, expecially after I read the latest comparision tests on http://ff123.net/128test/instruct.html that put OGG on top aside with MPC. BUT the APPLAUD.WAV test case ( http://lame.sourceforge.net/download/samples/applaud.wav ) still produces **VERY** easily audible high-frequency artifacts when encoded with OGG RC3 up to q4.9 (!!!). Things

Hi everyone. I did a rough recording of an instrumental (electric piano sound) & e-mailed it to a friend in Vorbis 11025 Hz / mono. I was seeking a bitrate in the range 8-16k/sec. The song is 2:55 in length. q=-1 happily achieved a 12.6k/sec bitrate. All file sizes I mention in this are for files without informational tags. And I hope this isn't interpreted as trying to plug my music or

Hi, I'm quite familiar w/ mp3 cbr/abr/vbr encoding, as well as mpeg4 (cbr/vbr,etc). And I can always calc the bit rate for a given file size with: file size * 8000 / length in seconds = kbits/sec Works great w/ mpeg4 + mp3. BUT FOR THE LIFE OF ME: I cannot get oggenc (1.0x version) to give me the file size I want. I calc. it with the above formula, and nothing comes out right. Then I do

Hi there ! I checked Vorbis' performace for mono files at approx. 64-80 kbps (it does a good job) and I'm wondering why the current OggEnc still uses Point-Stereo (>10kHz) for -q4 and -q5 I know, we're usually unable to percieve those phase correlations above 10 kHz, But a Dolby Prologic Decoder isn't. I think a future version of OggEnc which is able to use a user-selectable

Hai! I'm from Hungary, and my English is not so good. Excuse me! I'm using Linux Debian woody, with kernel 2.4.18 Now I try to encode my music files, that are in .wav format to .ogg format. I used to use the lame program to encode my music files to .mp3 format. I try it now on a Windows NT 4, and this 2 version: Lame version 3.92 MMX OggEnc v1.0 (libvorbis 1.0) I have a question, why is

On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Monty Montgomery <monty at xiph.org> wrote: >> No comments? > > Mostly no. > > There are no presets because the encoder is smart enough to act > intelligently by default. The exposed knobs are exposed only for > those who know they actually need them. This is pretty much how Xiph > encoders have always been. > > The

Hello, The previous message seems to confirm that I'm posting to the right place - apologies if not. I have a project where I'm streaming live software-generated PCM audio to icecast via ices 2.0 stdinpcm - this works great for ogg vorbis (thanks very much guys!) I haven't been able to find a stdin-based solution for PCM->mp3->icecast, is there one? From the docs, it looks

Hey folks. I know tags aren't anyone's favorite subject, but I'd like to make a suggestion for a tag that I think is quite important -- a quality tag. So important, I think, that oggenc really ought to automatically create one when the -q option is used. As all of us know, in the Vorbis codec the quality of the stream is often a more important (and more informative) value than the

I mentioned many months back that I intend to switch to Ogg/Vorbis from MP3/LAME once the final version is out but I need to have an adjustable lowpass filter option similar to LAME's. If this isn't done yet, could you please add it to your list for OggEnc. Specifically I need to cut all frequencies above 17khz. Thanks, Ross. --- >8 ---- List archives: http://www.xiph.org/archives/

This mail depends upon the fact that I don't have a couple of good earphones ;-) I read in the site that q=6 is a very high quality, but does it contain perceivable differencies from the original? (for 95% of people, of course). I also found q=6 to produce files slightly bigger (1/10 bigger) than those produced with lame VBR q=2 (about 192 bps on average). I always thought LAME VBR q=2

Hello! First of all, 100x thanks to Monty and colleagues: you have done an excellent job! I just didn't believe my ears when I first tested Oggenc 1.0 at q0 to q1 - it sounds AMAZINGLY GOOD !!! But as HDD drives are getting larger and cheaper, most of us move toward higher quality settings ......... I use q8, because: - I was able to ABX some test samples up to q4.99 - at q8 Ogg is still

>>> Jan Stary <hans at stare.cz> schrieb am 05.11.2018 um 11:05 in Nachricht <20181105100534.GB44329 at www.stare.cz>: > (Are we off‑list now by intention?) No, just fooled by the list defaults (some need just reply, others need reply to all) > >> Did you also try to listen at the beginning, shortly before the real tone > appears in the audible spectrum?

Are there comparable presets or recommendations for opusenc vbr parameters? lame --preset standard --> opusenc ??? lame --preset extreme --> opusenc ??? I have used opusenc without custom vbr parameters and the files were much smaller than for lame's standard preset but I can't answer if that's comparable or the result was lossier in opus. Hearing tests of course show no

(quoting from the web archive, I only just subscribed) Monty wrote: > > > (a bit testy that this flamewar has started again, and no one has learned a > > thing from the previous rounds) > > OK, that wasn't fair... the old timers know what's up, but I do wish some of > the folks who bring things up would browse the archive threads or at least not > jump in

I've just done some rudimentary testing to see how Vorbis degrades at absurdly low bitrates without downsampling. In summary, don't hope for anything decent below -q 0 for now. I tried oggenc -b <bitrate> -M <bitrate> for the below and a few in between: 24k - spectral energy "floor" captured decently, but many pure-tone blips (think old computer movie sound effects)