On Saturday 12 January 2008, Craig White wrote: >On Sun, 2008-01-13 at 14:32 +1030, Tim wrote: >> On Sat, 2008-01-12 at 13:07 -0800, Dean S. Messing wrote: >> > How does Ogg's compression quality compare with MP3 and ACC at the >> > same bitrate? >> >> Comparing the two that I've listned too, MP3 and Ogg Vorbis, I have to >> say that MP3s need to be encoded *well* above 196 kbs before I stop >> noticing nasty artifacts (squeaks, squeals, plops, strange mushy >> effects, etc., that aren't part of the original sound source). On the >> other hand, ogg at 128 kbs seems quite adequate, and I haven't noticed >> any nasty artifacts. I haven't tried lower bit rate oggs. >> >> That's listening through some decent Beyer or Sennheiser headphones, and >> through some rather nice Wharfedale bookshelf speakers and a 0.001% >> distortion stereo amplifier. Not ludicrously expensive gear, just >> modest home HiFi gear (apart from the Beyer headsets - they're a second >> hand professional set, I don't go around buying $400+ headests as a >> rule). > >---- >using a professional headset to listen to compressed/lossy music is sort of > absurd to begin with isn't it? One thing is for sure, he, unless he's got tin ears, will most certainly be able to hear the quite considerable difference between mp3's and ogg's. At Q7 ogg's or 192k mp3's, the difference is plainly audible to these 73 year old ears. In favor of Ogg's obviously. But then I have Carhart Notches 120+ db deep too. Wore out too many rifle barrels at the shooting bench before I discovered ear muffs. >That's sort of like Starbucks using treated effluent to brew a Caramel > Macchiato. By golly, he does have a sense of humor! >Craig -- Cheers, Gene "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) "Though a program be but three lines long, someday it will have to be maintained." -- The Tao of Programming
