Ogg Vorbis CD Quality?

[yawnmoth]

This homepage has some nice comparisons of what bitrates make which audio compression scheme CD quality:

http://www.iis.fraunhofer.de/amm/techinf/layer3/

So my question is... what bitrates would make Ogg Vorbis CD quality?

[MvB]

The problem for me is: I wouldn't dare to say that 112 or 128 kbit/s mp3 ist near CD Qualitiy. I've never heard a mp3 with that bitrate and good reproduction of high frequencies. The minimal approach to come near to CD Quality is variable bitrate around 192 kbit/s with joint stereo in lame. And even there you can hear the difference in comparison to a CD in a lot of songs.

[Didée]

I'm in the lucky situation to have a friend with really high-end audio equipment (he has more $$$ in his living room than I in my carport ;) )

We made some comparisons of mp3, Vorbis and original CD's.

Well, with his sensitive ears, after some minutes he was not willing to listen to mp3 any more at all ... ;) no matter what bitrate.

Vorbis @ 128 was BAD in his opinion, and even I could clearly tell the difference to the source.

Vorbis @ 256 was accepted by him, but still he missed a lot of "transparency" and such ... (my english ends here).
Still, even me was able to tell a difference, listening very closely.

Vorbis @ 500 was pretty good, but my friend still could distinguish it from the source. Here, I could not tell any difference.

Just to mention, this was a double blind test. Neither him nor me knew beforehand which was which, we had to look on my statistics paper afterwards.

[BluDChyLD]

Originally posted by Didée
I'm in the lucky situation to have a friend with really high-end audio equipment (he has more $$$ in his living room than I in my carport ;) )

We made some comparisons of mp3, Vorbis and original CD's.

Well, with his sensitive ears, after some minutes he was not willing to listen to mp3 any more at all ... ;) no matter what bitrate.

Vorbis @ 128 was BAD in his opinion, and even I could clearly tell the difference to the source.

Vorbis @ 256 was accepted by him, but still he missed a lot of "transparency" and such ... (my english ends here).
Still, even me was able to tell a difference, listening very closely.

Vorbis @ 500 was pretty good, but my friend still could distinguish it from the source. Here, I could not tell any difference.

Just to mention, this was a double blind test. Neither him nor me knew beforehand which was which, we had to look on my statistics paper afterwards.

That's really suprising, he must have very good equipment :) I encode all my mp3s using the --r3mix vbr preset and I can't tell the differance from the original cd. My equipments hardly highend but it's not bad (cambridge audio a1 v2 amp with wharfedale sp-83s) but suppose when your paying real $$$, it's a differet story...

[Sven Bent]

yuo sdhoudl considerdumping --r3mix and use --alt-preset instead

it much better tuned and contains low leve tweak in the soucecode that cannot be reache by simple parameters.

www.hydrogenaudio.org for more info

[BluDChyLD]

Originally posted by Sven Bent
yuo sdhoudl considerdumping --r3mix and use --alt-preset instead

it much better tuned and contains low leve tweak in the soucecode that cannot be reache by simple parameters.

www.hydrogenaudio.org for more info

I tried the alt preset switch and even through headphones I couldn't tell the differance to r3mix. The file encoding is a lot slower and the file size bigger so I personally don't think it's worth it...

[kxy]

download fatboy.wav from lame developer site, you will hear a difference.

[Neo Neko]

Yes it's not about the songs you don't hear artifacts on but the ones you do. Lame's alt preset standard is much better tuned than -r3mix and the files should be of similar size. Your encodes are much safer with -aps than -r3mix.

On the subject of CD quality Vorbis or CD quality from any lossy codec. It is impossible. They can never yeild CD quality. On the other had there can be transparency achieved. But it is relative to each and every listener. So no one can tell you the best settings for a "transparent" encode other than yourself.

[BluDChyLD]

i agree, but even if you loose some quality through MP3 or vorbis you get to fit about 10-15 times more songs on a cd which in my opinion is definetley worth it :)

[Trahald]

yeah.. people are switching to lossless codecs. wavs have some decent potential for lossless compression . so you can get 100% cd quality for about 600-900 kbps (.APE is my favorite)

http://www.monkeysaudio.com/download.html

[Zenitram]

Originally posted by yawnmoth
This homepage has some nice comparisons of what bitrates make which audio compression scheme CD quality:

http://www.iis.fraunhofer.de/amm/techinf/layer3/

So my question is... what bitrates would make Ogg Vorbis CD quality?

MP3 128K CD Quality with Fraunhofer! Oh no!!!

Blind test and high quality speakers (too!) with CD, MP3 (Lame please, no CBR!!!) and OGG
- CD is the best (normal!)
- MP3 256K and OGG 192K : normal human can't do difference with CD, even with the best speakers (Audiophiles always can, but who is a true Audiophile in the forum :) )
- MP3 192K and OGG 128K are very good
- MP3 128K and OGG 96K are good for music, OK with normal speakers
- MP6 96K and OGG 56K are acceptable for videos

You can chose a multiplier of 2/3 between OGG and MP3 quality.
And don't convert MP3 to OGG, only CD to MP3 or CD to OGG!

[Shootist]

i must say the differences between mp3 and ogg are not soo big with high bitrates. but in low bitrates ogg sounds really better than mp3. and who has audio equipment for XXXX dollars. i use normal stereo-speakers like most people and there the diffenrence are really small