ARGH! I am at a complete loss as to which OGG quality settings to use: 8? 10? 3? I'd like to be able to listen to my primarily Rock oriented music on a high-end system (though I don't own one - yet) without any noticeable sound degradation, but I don't want to go total overkill with -q 10. With LAME, I at least used to know 192 kbps with -q0 was a perfect size/quality proportion. I can't seem to be able to choose with the OGG settings...heck, even -q 3 doesn't really sound bad to me (on my Cambridge Soundworks speakers, the ones that came with my SBLive). Any suggestions as to which settings to use? -- GMX - Die Kommunikationsplattform im Internet. http://www.gmx.net <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.
At 16:41 1/3/2002, you wrote:>heck, even -q 3 doesn't >really sound bad to meQuality 3 is roughly equivalent to roughly 160 KBps bitrate of MP3, if I'm not mistaken. Therefore, it *should* sound very good. <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.
-q 3 seems to be fairly "standard". It produces files that are around 110 kbps. That's a good setting if you think your average MP3 sounds bad and want better sounding music. I use -q 0 because I've found in abx tests I can't tell the difference and I like the space savings. :) --- Stan Seibert <p>On Thu, 3 Jan 2002, Erik Fuller wrote:> ARGH! I am at a complete loss as to which OGG quality settings to use: 8? > 10? 3? > I'd like to be able to listen to my primarily Rock oriented music on a > high-end system (though I don't own one - yet) without any noticeable sound > degradation, but I don't want to go total overkill with -q 10. With LAME, I at > least used to know 192 kbps with -q0 was a perfect size/quality proportion. I > can't seem to be able to choose with the OGG settings...heck, even -q 3 doesn't > really sound bad to me (on my Cambridge Soundworks speakers, the ones that > came with my SBLive). > > Any suggestions as to which settings to use? > > -- > GMX - Die Kommunikationsplattform im Internet. > http://www.gmx.net > > > --- >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. ><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.
If you want archival quality oggs, to keep them for years and don't hear any difference with the original, you could encode at -q 7, which is about 230-250kbps. -q 5 gives a good quality too, identical to the original for the average listener. The advice I can give you is to make several tests with a few samples, using -q 4, -q 5 and others. If you hear a difference with the original sample at -q 4 and not at -q 5 for example, you can safely encode at -q 6 or -q 7. That's just a suggestion, you see what you want :) ----- Original Message ----- From: Erik Fuller <Phaedras@gmx.net> To: <vorbis@xiph.org> Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 11:41 PM Subject: [vorbis] quality settings <p>> ARGH! I am at a complete loss as to which OGG quality settings to use: 8?> 10? 3? > I'd like to be able to listen to my primarily Rock oriented music on a > high-end system (though I don't own one - yet) without any noticeablesound> degradation, but I don't want to go total overkill with -q 10. With LAME,I at> least used to know 192 kbps with -q0 was a perfect size/qualityproportion. I> can't seem to be able to choose with the OGG settings...heck, even -q 3doesn't> really sound bad to me (on my Cambridge Soundworks speakers, the ones that > came with my SBLive). > > Any suggestions as to which settings to use? > > -- > GMX - Die Kommunikationsplattform im Internet. > http://www.gmx.net > > > --- >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.<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.
Erik Fuller (Phaedras@gmx.net) wrote:> ARGH! I am at a complete loss as to which OGG quality settings to use: 8? > 10? 3?Take a look at <http://www.lammah.com/~xercist/vorbis/qual_vs_bitrate.png>. There's a sudden jump (discontinuity) in the bitrate/quality graph at -q 5 because that's when Vorbis uses lossess channel coupling (a big hit in size).> With LAME, I at > least used to know 192 kbps with -q0 was a perfect size/quality proportion.... for you. ;-) For me that would be overkill, since I can't tell the difference even with lame --abr 160 -q0 --nspsytune. For you, I'd say listen to oggenc -q 4 and see if you can find any difference at all. If not, then -q 4 should be good enough. If you can hear differences, then keep increasing the number until you can't. A few people on the hydrogenaudio forum seem to think that -q 4.99999 is optimal (because it slides in underneath the -q 5 bitrate spike). Personally I'm using -q 3.5. -q 3 is transparent for me and I figure an extra .5 may be a safeguard against a track that's a bit more challenging for the encoder than what I've ABX-tested so far.) -- Greg Wooledge | "Truth belongs to everybody." greg@wooledge.org | - The Red Hot Chili Peppers http://wooledge.org/~greg/ | -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: part Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 241 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/vorbis/attachments/20020103/39809869/part.pgp
I would say -q4. If you were happy with MP3 @ 192 then I would think this should provide a similar quality. Ross. Erik Fuller wrote:>ARGH! I am at a complete loss as to which OGG quality settings to use: 8? >10? 3? >I'd like to be able to listen to my primarily Rock oriented music on a >high-end system (though I don't own one - yet) without any noticeable sound >degradation, but I don't want to go total overkill with -q 10. With LAME, I at >least used to know 192 kbps with -q0 was a perfect size/quality proportion. I >can't seem to be able to choose with the OGG settings...heck, even -q 3 doesn't >really sound bad to me (on my Cambridge Soundworks speakers, the ones that >came with my SBLive). > >Any suggestions as to which settings to use? ><p><p><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.