BigJonsson
Member
How do they all compare?
MP3, ACC, OGG, WMA, ASF?
Whats the difference?
MP3, ACC, OGG, WMA, ASF?
Whats the difference?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Audio file formats?
- Thread starter BigJonsson
- Start date
- Status
In terms of sound quality (at similar bitrates)... AAC > MP3/OGG/WMA > ASF (a streaming format).
If you don't mind roughly 5MB per minute per song, check out FLAC. Lossless compression, so you're literally listening to the CD, at about half the file size.
http://flac.sourceforge.net
If you don't mind roughly 5MB per minute per song, check out FLAC. Lossless compression, so you're literally listening to the CD, at about half the file size.
http://flac.sourceforge.net
BigJonsson
Member
So on my iPOD if I have everything as mp3 what should I convert it to? 
StrikerObi
Member
You could also try Apple Lossless. Apprently it does lossless at "half the size" of regular lossless encoders, or something... I think.
I use AAC for ripping CDs, I encode other stuff I record off the internet and such in VBR MP3.
You have an iPod? AAC then. You couldn't convert to Lossless, you need to record into it.
I use AAC for ripping CDs, I encode other stuff I record off the internet and such in VBR MP3.
BigJonsson said:So on my iPOD if I have everything as mp3 what should I convert it to?
You have an iPod? AAC then. You couldn't convert to Lossless, you need to record into it.
Winged Creature
Member
I thought OGG was the best sounding
BigJonsson
Member
Is there a program that can convert all my mp3's into ACC?
And is AAC smaller then MP3
And is AAC smaller then MP3
Winged Creature
Member
BigJonsson said:Is there a program that can convert all my mp3's into ACC?
And is AAC smaller then MP3
Wouldnt convert one lossy format to another lossy format result in more quality loss?
Fresh Prince
Banned
Winged Creature said:
Yes I thought that too. OGG Quality 8 is supposed to be comparable to FLAC, which as aoi said is the same as listening to the cd.
As Winged Creature said there is no point converting a lossy format to another format (regardless if it's wav, flac, ogg etc). Once information taken away from the audio file it cannot be replaced. If you try sampling it at a higher bit rate it will just oversample and perhaps even give you a worse result. The only reason you would do it is if the audio format you have is not supported by your DAP.
BigJonsson
Member
I don't care about the quality as long as it doesn't degrade much
I just want to be able to put more songs on my iPod
I just want to be able to put more songs on my iPod
Winged Creature
Member
Ecrofirt said:
im thinking it would results in more quality loss. U'd have to rip cd's to get the best quality
JoshuaJSlone
Member
Yes. Lossy -> Lossy = Even More Lossy.Winged Creature said:
Winged Creature
Member
OGG is the way i go, i re-ripped all my cd's to that format
The iPod plays MP3s, so you shouldn't need to convert anything. Look into the new version of iTunes, which supports Apple Lossless encoding. Unless you really know what you're doing, don't bother converting from one lossy codec to another. It won't hurt anything per se, but you'll lose sound quality. i'd recommend ripping your CDs (assuming you're using iTunes) to Apple Lossless. The files will be roughly 5MB per minute of music, but you'll should have perfect, bit-for-bit copies of the music as it is on CD.BigJonsson said:So on my iPOD if I have everything as mp3 what should I convert it to?
And to correct my post earlier, simply don't consider ASF. i don't think iTunes even reads OGG files, so it's probably out too.
For reference:
Lossless:
FLAC, Shorten (SHN), Monkey's Audio (APE), Apple Lossless
Lossy:
AAC, MP3, OGG, WMA
Doh! Look into a lossless codec like FLAC, Monkey's Audio, or Shorten. Apple Lossless might be another to try, but i don't know if it's well-supported outside of iTunes. If you do use FLAC, make sure to look into the replay gain feature. Players (like Winamp) that read replay gain metadata will play all of your ripped files at a uniform volume, so you don't have to adjust it yourself or use normalization plugins like Tom Steady (Winamp).Winged Creature said:
BigJonsson
Member
oooooo k
but if i want to maximize my space on the iPod should I go for MP3 or AAC from now on?
but if i want to maximize my space on the iPod should I go for MP3 or AAC from now on?
Winged Creature
Member
dont convert from MP3 to AAC unless u wanna loose quality, re-rip ur cd's in AAC
AAC all the way. It's an MPEG-4 codec which has better sound quality and smaller files compared to MP3s (and even OGGs IIRC) at similar bitrates. The tradeoff is that it takes more CPU power, but that's not an issue for an iPod or any PC made within the last couple of years or so.
Excellent thread! But aren't mp3s ripped at 320CBR via LAME at Alt.preset.extreme practically the same quality as CD?
My arm was practically twisted into using ripping my CDs into mp3s with EAC at 320cbr via Lame so I did. I don't really notice a difference.
Is the difference noticeable at all between 320cbr and AAC? I doubt it.
My arm was practically twisted into using ripping my CDs into mp3s with EAC at 320cbr via Lame so I did. I don't really notice a difference.
Is the difference noticeable at all between 320cbr and AAC? I doubt it.
Winged Creature
Member
I can tell the difference between 320kbs and CD, its quite big.
Winged Creature
Member
its not nearly as lound and full, the bass is boomy and not tight, the highs arent as crisp, they sound sorta shrilly and raspy
Short answer, yes, to most ears 320CBR LAME MP3 = CD. It's not true digitally, so unless you have something against lossless codecs, look into one of the ones i recommended, like FLAC. When you decode FLAC files, they return to the original WAVs. Best of all, a FLAC file (encoded at level 8 encoding) will be half the size of a 320CBR MP3, with marginally better quality.isamu said:
Winged Creature: What equipement (receivers, cans, etc.) are you using to detect these differences?
Winged Creature
Member
aoi tsuki said:
Im limited to only 80 gigs not enough room for lossless, and besides if I really want to enjoy the sound quality, i just pop in the cd in to my stereo and enjoy
ogg 128k and aac 128k are supposed to sound about the same, better than mp3 128k. at the highest bitrates they all sound about the same. the only way to go up is to go lossless (FLAC is my choice, although shn is big in the taping community)
also note that it depends on the encoder. the itunes mp3 encoder is famous for sounding terrible. if you encode mp3 my recommendation is LAME --preset-insane
also note that it depends on the encoder. the itunes mp3 encoder is famous for sounding terrible. if you encode mp3 my recommendation is LAME --preset-insane
Winged Creature
Member
Im just using my ears, and a decent set of speakers, the first thing u will notice is a huge difference in volume. CDs sound alot louder. Just comparing the 2, u can tell the bass isnt as impactful with the compressed format, the highs just dont sparkle. Im no audiophile but i know compressed music doesnt sound that great unless ur listening to it on headphones (i dont have good headpones)
Im using an energy sub, i have bose (which are bleh), but i listen to alot of my music on paradigmns.
Im using an energy sub, i have bose (which are bleh), but i listen to alot of my music on paradigmns.
From my experience compression also screws up the panning to some degree. If I make a track that has something playing 50% to the left...it sounds more centered when compressed in MP3 format. When I write my songs for MP3 release I usually have to make the panning more extreme than usual because of this. So it's not only the difference in sound quality that compression screws up.
Error Macro
Member
Hmm, gain (volume) and stereo seperation should not be issues if you are compressing the songs properly. I use LAME --alt-preset standard/extreme.
Winged Creature
Member
even files that have been "properly" compressed dont sound as good, there is a noticeable change in volume levels and fullness of the audio. Bass tightness is also an issue.
JoshuaJSlone
Member
You can't be correct/serious here. Lossless audio at far less than 2 MB per minute? Five times that, sure.aoi tsuki said:
BigJonsson said:
AAC/128kbps/44.1KHz, the default in iTunes. Don't convert your current mp3s to AAC, though, you'll just degrade the audio signals further. Over time, just re-encode everything into AAC and delete the mp3s. That's what I did, and now the only mp3s I have left are, um..."borrowed."
AAC - Great at 192kbps and higher. 128kbps sounds like shit. It dithers compression artifacts, so instead of it sounding all high pitched and whiny it has this grainy sound to it. Piss poor, and most songs on iTunes are 128kbps I think. But for high bitrate encoding, AAC slaughters everything else. The only thing better is CD audio, WAV, FLAC, SHN, Lossless Apple Codec, etc. but those aren't compressed too much/not compressed at all and have huge filesizes. Unless you were born with the ears of a cat and/or have $10,000 stereo equipment, don't encode your entire collection to SHN/FLAC/etc.
MP3 - I still use it over AAC... I honestly can't tell the difference between a 256kbps mp3 and 256kbps AAC file. AAC is the best, but there's nothing wrong with high quality mp3.
OGG - WEAK for high quality encoding. Try using an EQ and you'll see what I mean, it just is not ideal for high bitrates. Tons of tone loss. HOWEVER, ogg is the most ideal codec out there for streaming audio, I cannot BELIEVE it hasn't been adopted by every website on the face of the earth. A ~64-96kbps ogg, despite some tone loss, still sounds better than realaudio, windows media, and mp3 at that bitrate. It's superior for low bitrate encoding/streaming. It's free, too. That's why I can't understand why more companies don't use it. Even 128kbps WMA streams sound like ass compared to a 64kbps OGG stream. They could save themselves so much money streaming less data per month.
What you have to remember is that encoding your 192kbps MP3's into high quality AAC files will NOT sound better - it will sound worse. You are transcoding, and thus losing even more quality. Compressing compressed audio.
MP3 - I still use it over AAC... I honestly can't tell the difference between a 256kbps mp3 and 256kbps AAC file. AAC is the best, but there's nothing wrong with high quality mp3.
OGG - WEAK for high quality encoding. Try using an EQ and you'll see what I mean, it just is not ideal for high bitrates. Tons of tone loss. HOWEVER, ogg is the most ideal codec out there for streaming audio, I cannot BELIEVE it hasn't been adopted by every website on the face of the earth. A ~64-96kbps ogg, despite some tone loss, still sounds better than realaudio, windows media, and mp3 at that bitrate. It's superior for low bitrate encoding/streaming. It's free, too. That's why I can't understand why more companies don't use it. Even 128kbps WMA streams sound like ass compared to a 64kbps OGG stream. They could save themselves so much money streaming less data per month.
What you have to remember is that encoding your 192kbps MP3's into high quality AAC files will NOT sound better - it will sound worse. You are transcoding, and thus losing even more quality. Compressing compressed audio.
Diablos said:
Diablos....you say with conviction that encoding at a high bit-rate in either Lame or AAC is fine, but you fail to counter Winged Creature's point stating...
Winged Creature said:
How do you respond to this? I origianlly stated in this thread that I could not hear a difference between mp3 at 320cbr and CD but I was just playing devil's advocate. I *DO* hear the difference and everything Winged Creator says is 100% ON THE MONEY! It is just not worth having your entire collection stored in a lossy format.
That is why I want to buy a 300gig HD and re-encode everything in FLAC. The problem for portables is space. even 80GB is not enough.
I am thinking about buying a OQO and having them swap it with a 250GB drive. The OQO is ideal for me since it runs on a full blown Windows XP and can run Winamp and its plugins like DFX...DFX makes a HUUUGE difference in sound quality even on mp3s. But like a said, the space is the real issue.
Chairman85
Member
I would love to see ABX results with a 320 kbps MP3 vs Uncompressed WAV from those who "hear a difference."
Chairman85
Member
I'm saying it takes "Golden Ears" to ABX (a double blind test) 320 kbps vs. Uncompressed WAVs on anything but known problem samples. Mind you, this is with LAME 3.90.3 using --alt-preset insane as the highest quality 320 kbps MP3 there is. I'd be willing to wager that --alt-preset standard (a VBR mode averaging ~200 kbps) would be impossible for almost anyone to ABX from the original.
Error Macro
Member
Yes, many audiophiles have stated that alt-preset standard is pratically transparent for about 99% of all music.
It is utter bullshit to say there is no difference between MP3 and WMA. WMA is capable of lossless compression. AAC certainly is not superior to WMA. Anyone who could possibly say there is no difference between a WMA & MP3 file at similar bit rates has obviously never heard or seen a WMA file before in their life. Not only is WMA smaller file sizes and higher quality at the same bitrates to MP3, but WMA is also capable of lossless compression.aoi tsuki said:
WMA > AAC > MP3
Chairman85
Member
Almost every person in this thread has presented Opinion as Fact. Show me ABX before you make claims you can't back up.
Fact is Lossless (FLAC, APE, Apple Lossless, WMA Lossless, SHN, WavPack, etc.) is the only true CD-quality audio files besides 16-Bit 44.1 KHz PCM Audio. Almost all modern Lossy Codecs (MPC, Ogg Vorbis, MP3, AAC, WMA) are capable of achieving transparency at about ~200 kbps.
Fact is Lossless (FLAC, APE, Apple Lossless, WMA Lossless, SHN, WavPack, etc.) is the only true CD-quality audio files besides 16-Bit 44.1 KHz PCM Audio. Almost all modern Lossy Codecs (MPC, Ogg Vorbis, MP3, AAC, WMA) are capable of achieving transparency at about ~200 kbps.
Winged Creature
Member
Once higher rez audio formats become mainstream, compressed music wont have as much appeal, unless u dont care about sound quality, so even if are using the best codec or what not, the sound difference will be noticeable. Just listen to Dark Side of the Moon on 5.1 SACD, compressed music cant capture that sound.
Error Macro
Member
You're comparing 2 channel stereo music, to a 5.1 remix? Unfair.
Winged Creature
Member
true, but even the stereo SACD blows away anything else, the 5.1 is in its own league
Of course it can't, audio compression at the current moment is for the most part only ideal for 2-channel audio.
As for highs and lows sounding weird in mp3s - that's called compression artifacts. I hear them in AAC files too.
Oh yeah, to think that WMA is superior to MP3 is just absurd
As for highs and lows sounding weird in mp3s - that's called compression artifacts. I hear them in AAC files too.
Oh yeah, to think that WMA is superior to MP3 is just absurd
Chairman85
Member
Transparency is the point which a Lossy File is indistinguishable to the Original through ABX testing.isamu said:
The Faceless Master
Member
does it matter if the quality is theoretically better if you can't hear the difference?isamu said:
Chairman85
Member
ABX testing eliminates the Placebo effect and objectively shows that you can hear a difference. Basically, you are not rating the sound but looking for a difference.isamu said:
TAJ
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
>>>You could also try Apple Lossless. Apprently it does lossless at "half the size" of regular lossless encoders, or something... I think.<<<
I've read that Apple Lossless isn't really lossless. In other words, if you encode to Apple Lossless, then decode, you won't get the original data back. I haven't tested this myself, though.
I've read that Apple Lossless isn't really lossless. In other words, if you encode to Apple Lossless, then decode, you won't get the original data back. I haven't tested this myself, though.
- Status