Old 17th January 2002, 05:47   #1
WildWing
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 5
Send a message via AIM to WildWing
MP3 vs. WMA vs. Ogg Vorbis

I've been trying to up sample some of my MP3's for the longest with some of the best sound editing software and still find that they never quite come up to the quality of Windows Media Audio (WMA) files. So I'm really starting to jump on the ban waggon of those who say that WMA is a much better format, what do you guys say? And what about this recent Ogg Vorbis craze, I've heard good and bad stuff about it, why do you like or dislike this format?
WildWing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th January 2002, 08:29   #2
Twilightseer
Frenchoderator
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Lavabo, fond du couloir, 3è porte à droite
Posts: 6,310
Ranking :

1) MP3 (lame -encoded)

Top quality, most common format, supported by MP3 players

2) Ogg

Top quality, totally free

3) WMA

Pure crap, so-called "secure format", unsupported

Twilightseer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th January 2002, 08:46   #3
Curi0us_George
Forum King
 
Curi0us_George's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Oxford, MS Posts: -1
Posts: 5,179
Send a message via AIM to Curi0us_George Send a message via Yahoo to Curi0us_George
What the hell do you mean? You are trying to "up-sample" your MP3s? Increasing the bitrate on a file encoded in any lossy format (mp3.ogg, wma) will not increase quality. It will make it worse. To increase the bitrate, you have to re-encode, which further destroys data.

For the freedom to express myself in my own way without fear of being censored or banned.

47 65 6C 61 65 64 2E 63 6F 6D 00
Curi0us_George is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th January 2002, 09:09   #4
Rant
Senior Member
 
Rant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 113
Send a message via ICQ to Rant Send a message via AIM to Rant Send a message via Yahoo to Rant
George is 100 % right. To up-sample (if that's what you mean by it) you would need to decode to wav, which holds the potential for loss (albeit a small risk) depending on what software you use. Then you would have to re-encode, which would introduce even more loss no matter what format or bit-rate you encode it at (there's always some loss). The end result you would be left with would probably be a larger file that's sounds lke crap.
Rant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th January 2002, 12:29   #5
BeerBaron
Senior Member
 
BeerBaron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: My Brewery
Posts: 388
Send a message via ICQ to BeerBaron Send a message via AIM to BeerBaron
May i suggest hydrogen audio They will give you absolutly every piece of useless information on your music to tell you which one is best.


Sympathy, prayer... Crew of the space Shuttle Columbia, do i need to say more?
BeerBaron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th January 2002, 13:55   #6
NRen2k5
Banned
 
NRen2k5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Canada, eh?
Posts: 622
Send a message via ICQ to NRen2k5 Send a message via AIM to NRen2k5 Send a message via Yahoo to NRen2k5
WMA is crap. The treble range sound very artificial on good equipment, due to their bad SBR-like algorithms.
NRen2k5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th January 2002, 18:12   #7
nfinitefx_
Senior Member
 
nfinitefx_'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: OH
Posts: 210
Send a message via AIM to nfinitefx_
WMA, barf, you must be on drugs...get some help if you think that WMA's are excelent quality. The best sounding music files i've heard are, VBR MP3's (with VBR set to go no lower than 192Kbps) and MpegPlus files under the -insane encode setting.
nfinitefx_ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th January 2002, 08:42   #8
WildWing
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 5
Send a message via AIM to WildWing
Ok, looks like all of you agree that WMA SUCKS... My next questions are, how can I improve the quality of MP3's? What's the best software to use when decoding to wav, I use Cool Edit 2000 and Sound Forge 5, are these any good in your opinion, and if you guys have done any re-mastering what have you used?

Also, what bitrate should I use when decoding to wav, and where can I get encoders and decoders for these formats VBR MP3, Ogg Vorbis and Mpeg Plus?
WildWing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th January 2002, 09:30   #9
and1k
Senior Member
 
and1k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: 6" from my screen.
Posts: 410
You can download encoder plugins for Winamp for OGG and MP3 (fraunhoffer) and MP3 (Lame) from www.Winamp.com

I would thank you kindly not to sniff my chicken
and1k is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th January 2002, 09:31   #10
Rant
Senior Member
 
Rant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 113
Send a message via ICQ to Rant Send a message via AIM to Rant Send a message via Yahoo to Rant
Either Cool Edit or Sound Forge should serve you equally well. Myself I don't bother trying to improve poor quality mp3's I just replace 'em.
Myself I use CDex to encode to mp3 you can get it here. I use the following ABR settings with CDex:

Thread Priority- Highest
LAME version 1.26 engine 3.90 alpha 8 mmx
Version- MPEG-1
Min bitrate 128
Max Bitrate- 320
Stereo
Quality- Very High (-q0)
VBR Method-ABR
ABR-224
VBR-0

You can get the Ogg Vorbis encoder here. Look for the Oggdrop .... it's dead easy to use. Try a quality setting with Oggdrop not a bit-rate setting. 6 or higher should produce very nice results. I haven't used this myself but have been told that the results are very nice.
BTW you'll need a plug-in to plag .ogg files with Winamp. I've lost my link but it shouldn't be too hard to find. If you have any trouble finding it though contact me and I'll hook you up.
Rant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th January 2002, 04:28   #11
WildWing
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 5
Send a message via AIM to WildWing
Ok, thanks alot Rant! But if I were to decode an MP3 back to a wav what bitrate should be used, or should I just go straight from MP3 to Ogg or CDex, without first decoding to wav which as mentioned before the chance of losing quality?
WildWing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th January 2002, 04:36   #12
BeerBaron
Senior Member
 
BeerBaron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: My Brewery
Posts: 388
Send a message via ICQ to BeerBaron Send a message via AIM to BeerBaron
You would lose quality anyway you do it, the only way not to lose quality is to re-encode straight from the source. The cd, or if you made any lossless (.ape, .pac) files, those will work too.


Sympathy, prayer... Crew of the space Shuttle Columbia, do i need to say more?
BeerBaron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th January 2002, 04:56   #13
WildWing
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 5
Send a message via AIM to WildWing
Quote:
Originally posted by BeerBaron
You would lose quality anyway you do it, the only way not to lose quality is to re-encode straight from the source. The cd, or if you made any lossless (.ape, .pac) files, those will work too.
What are .ape and .pac files?
WildWing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th January 2002, 05:48   #14
BeerBaron
Senior Member
 
BeerBaron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: My Brewery
Posts: 388
Send a message via ICQ to BeerBaron Send a message via AIM to BeerBaron
I also suggest Vorbis (.ogg), lightyears ahead of mp3, it is just as good as mpc, and uses less cpu resources. when using vorbis, use q6, or if you dont have quality settings, just use abr < 200. or vbr 224.

and i cannot stress this anough, re-encde from the source.


Sympathy, prayer... Crew of the space Shuttle Columbia, do i need to say more?
BeerBaron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th January 2002, 10:51   #15
binary hero
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 7,004
Send a message via ICQ to binary hero
IM(not very H)O ogg is far superior to mp3 (wma isn't even worth mentioning)
binary hero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th June 2017, 15:57   #16
xrischan
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 1
High Res Lossy Formats

Hi all.
It should be worth pointing out that MP3 will ever only encode a file to 16/44.1
If you have files that start greater than that, 24/96 for example, then you should steer away from MP3 regardless if its LAME or not.
OGG Vorbis has the high 96KHz sample rate, but can only encode to 16bit.
WMA 10 (pro) on the other hand can encode files up to 24bit 96KHz. I use it for mobile devices whilst keeping FLAC on my NAS. I can get a file size reduction of 90% of the FLACs and really enjoy the quallity. The highs are the same as the flacs and the stereo imaging is also the same as the FLAC. Something i cant say for MP3. I find MP3s are grindy, flappy and has poor stereo imaging.
Audiable tests should be done for yourself but in terms of what you can get out i would say WMA10 all the way.
xrischan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th June 2017, 11:58   #17
SSJ4 Gogitta
Followed by Gnomes
(Forum King)
 
SSJ4 Gogitta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: West Virginia Googolplex: 10^10¹°° FB:/SSJ4.DominusDeus DeviantArt: DominusDeus XboX GT: A Wild Meeseeks Playstation 4: DominusDeus
Posts: 7,160
Send a message via AIM to SSJ4 Gogitta
Well that was a 15 and a half year necrobump.

SSJ4 Gogitta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th June 2017, 18:54   #18
gaekwad2
Foorum King
 
gaekwad2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: bar2000
Posts: 11,408
And it's wrong too.
gaekwad2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th June 2017, 07:52   #19
old and quite mad
Major Dude
 
old and quite mad's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: The PLANET Pluto
Posts: 764

"I don't even use winamp or really know what it is. yeah" - Thedesignisgreat
old and quite mad is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Go Back   Winamp & SHOUTcast Forums > Community Center > General Discussions

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump