Best near-lossless codec?

joeyjojo

joeyjojo

joeyjojo

Soldato
Joined
2 Dec 2005
Posts
5,514
Location
Herts
As title. Got some stuff in monkeys audio atm, but it's too big and I definitely cannot hear the difference compared to near-lossless, which can get far smaller. But where is the best size/quality ratio?

Bitrate? 192, 256, 300+? WMA seems fine, but are there better codecs?
 
Ogg offers better sound quality than MP3, even at lower bitrates. Naim Audiophile said so. :p

Try 165kps VBR OGG AOTUV

Mp3 sounds rubbish by comparison
 
Problem with Vorbis is that it isn't really supported by music players and the like, which is a shame.

In terms of quality (although this will generally depend upon the bitrate and the listener):

Vorbis > AAC > MP3 > WMA

In terms of what format i'd actually rip my music to:

MP3 > AAC > Vorbis > WMA

I rip to 320Kbps CBR so what I use doesn't really matter all too much, hence why I go for MP3 since it's used EVERYWHERE :)
 
squiffy said:
Ogg offers better sound quality than MP3, even at lower bitrates. Naim Audiophile said so. :p

Try 165kps VBR OGG AOTUV

Mp3 sounds rubbish by comparison
Click to expand...
I ripped a CD using MP3 VBR (Quality 2) and Ogg Vorbis (Quality 6), which seem to be comparable (bitrate/size), and listened to them, and the MP3 certainly didn't sound "rubbish" as compared to the Ogg Vorbis, so I think that comment (about it being rubbish) is an exaggeration (to say the least)!

I noticed very little (if any) difference in actual sound quality. :)
 
jbloggs said:
I ripped a CD using MP3 VBR (Quality 2) and Ogg Vorbis (Quality 6), which seem to be comparable (bitrate/size), and listened to them, and the MP3 certainly didn't sound "rubbish" as compared to the Ogg Vorbis, so I think that comment (about it being rubbish) is an exaggeration (to say the least)!

I noticed very little (if any) difference in actual sound quality. :)
Click to expand...

Double blind ABX test with a Naim Audiophile, on a several K Naim audio system. Can you say the same?
 
i want to see blind test results of lossy formats >200k before i call one better than the other. as far as hydrogen audio go, they say most of the formats about that rate are pretty much totally transparent. in which case it really would fall down to which is better supported.....mp3.



so im laying down a challenge. if you think ogg is better than mp3, or aac is better than both, you're going to have to prove it:)

squiffy said:
Double blind ABX test with a Naim Audiophile, on a several K Naim audio system. Can you say the same?
Click to expand...

are you still talking about 165k ogg? who in their right mind would rip with a bitrate that low?
 
are you still talking about 165k ogg? who in their right mind would rip with a bitrate that low?
Click to expand...

To compare low bitrate files! 165Kps OGG sounds great on a portable DAP.
The collection on the HTPC is flac.

Try encoding a 96kps VBR MP3, and 96Kps VBR OGG. OGG sounds far far better (Mp3 like telephone, OGG still has acceptable sound quality)
 
yeah but we arent talking about low bitrate files lol

anyway on a different note, whats the difference between say.... a 192k vbr lam and a ~169k ogg in size?
 
squiffy said:
Double blind ABX test with a Naim Audiophile, on a several K Naim audio system. Can you say the same?
Click to expand...
When I ripped the CD into Ogg Vorbis and MP3 VBR files and listened to them, I was not endeavouring to establish which was the best, but simply to verify that your statement:

Mp3 sounds rubbish by comparison
Click to expand...
Is simply not the case, and that MP3 VBR (at the quaility I was using), provides a half decent listening experience.

Ogg Vorbis cold well be better than MP3 VBR, but as i said that is not what I set out to establish.

If I rip CDs to my HDD, I use FLACs. :)
 
lol defend MP3 how you like, cloth ears!
Even high bitrate Mp3 doesn't sound right. Ogg sounds better than Mp3 at lower bitrates, as proven by the double blind ABX test.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom