CD ripping and Vorbis?

[oxf]

I have some questions regarding Vorbis. Until recently I had only ever ripped using MP3. I used VBR quality “0” which is the highest. Then someone sugested I try Vorbis so I did some reading around. What I found was this:

The Vorbis site claims its better than MP3. Specifically better quality for a given file size or smaller file size for the same quality.

Also Vorbis site gave me impression that VBR is not quite a concept used in Vorbis as such. It tried to avoid talking about bit rate per see and said “quality” was a better way of describing the concept.

It also say that Quality “6” is “close to CD quality” something that someone has told me is absolute rubbish!.

I then did a few “test” rips using Vorbis Q”6” and looked at the bit rate in file properties. It gives me a bit rate of 192K! Hmmm is it really 192K when bit rate is not relevant tto Vorbis or is that just how the propertied tries to interpret it?

Now I'm confused, totally! I've been told that Vorbis is no better than MP3 in reality and should stick to MP3. I was completely satisfied with my MP3 rip using VBR “0” However, it would be nice to shrink the file size down a bit if possible without compromising any quality.

Please could someone who knows the “truth” about Vorbis explain this all to me.
Thanks...

[techieMoe]

When it comes to "quality" in terms of how audio files sound, there is no absolute truth. The way we interpret sounds is completely subjective. Sure, it's obvious that a music file with crackles and static is inferior to one that sounds clear, but beyond that it's entirely in the ear of the beholder.

Perhaps instead of focusing on minutiae like bitrates, listen to files of similar size created by both formats and see which (if either) sounds better to you. Use whichever works for your ears. I personally have never been able to tell a difference between mid-quality Ogg Vorbis and MP3, and I tend to use both for different applications. Most of my portable devices read MP3 only, so most of my music is in that format. When I rip a CD on Linux to be used only by Linux, I use Ogg Vorbis if I can, just for the intellectual idea that I'm using an open format on an open OS.

[previso]

It is my understanding FLAC is the superior compression codec. And then again, other than a PC, there is no way to reproduce it, same as Vorbis. If what you want is to "copy" the CD, WAVE is the thing to do. No loss at all. Then you can do the MP3 thing for the pocket player.
The following: Comparison of audio formats - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia provides excellent info on codec limitations.

[reed9]

I've never seen a review of vorbis that did not compare favorably to mp3 at mid to low bit rates.

Speaking of bitrates, they do matter in Vorbis, but, at least as I understand it, the "quality" rating is more user friendly and easily grasped than talking about technical details like bitrate. And of course with VBR, the goal is to get a standard quality of recording with a variable bit rate to save on space. Quality 4 averages to 128 kbit/s, 6 to 192 kbit/s as you saw, and Quality 9 to 320 kbit/s.

Vorbis is not Theora | The Linux Experiment
Vorbis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Felipe Alvarez's blog OGG Vorbis vs. MP3

[bclark4444]

It is my understanding FLAC is the superior compression codec.

This depends on what you mean by "superior". If you are talking sound quality then it is superior in the aspect of it being a loss-less compression so it can reproduce the sound exactly like it was in the wav file (or on the CD). If you are talking file size then its not so good as its way bigger than an mp3 or ogg file.

mp3 and ogg are lossy compressions that actually remove some of the sound that it deems unnecessary before compressing whats left. This leads to much smaller file sizes, but with the reduction of some of the intricacies that the music may hold.

Personally, on my iPod with earbuds, i cannot tell the difference between an mp3 or a wav file, so i use mp3 to fit more music on there. Then again, i listen to rock and pop-rock (and occasionally hip hop) so those styles of music arent as overly intricate as something like classical music.

In the end, let your ears make the decision...

--Brett

[Dapper Dan]

I agree with letting your ears be the judge. We use both mp3 and ogg every day at my radio station and both do us a good job. We receive commercials from agencies as .mp3 but I also use .ogg when transferring large church programs on Sunday. With our radio automation system, all must be converted to .wav which is fine for programs and commercials. I've tried the "mp3 versus ogg" test myself and my conclusion was that ogg sounded ever so slightly better with the sample rates we use. Could it just be my prejudice toward all things open source? Possibly, but I don't think the sound differences matter that much after being converted and broadcast as .wav.

[jonantice]

What is subjective: ogg sounds slightly better at equal bitrates than mp3. At higher bit-rates, ogg seems to be noticeably better than and equal-bitrate mp3. Earbuds and crappy speakers negate this.

What is fact (as in what I've measured): At low bitrates (128, 192), ogg files will be larger than mp3s. Once you get into higher quality bitrates (384, 512) ogg seems to do a better job at compression gives a smaller file than mp3. In other words oggs compression seems to be optimized for high-bitrate compression.