Ogg/MP3 encoding at very high bitrates

hollunder at gmx.at hollunder at gmx.at
Sat Feb 9 23:55:40 GMT 2008

On Sat, 09 Feb 2008 17:58:05 -0500
"Cory K." <coryisatm at nc.rr.com> wrote:

> Joseph Wakeling wrote:
> > Hello all,
> >
> > I listen to a lot of classical and otherwise complex music, so I'm
> > concerned that when I rip CDs I get a very high-quality result.
> >
> > By default I'd therefore use FLAC but I'm curious about the very
> > high quality level (say -q 9 or -q 10, that is, round about 300+
> > kB/s) ogg and MP3 encoding and how it compares.  Partly just
> > theoretical curiosity about the algorithms and how they work at
> > different levels of compression (what data does it remove at these
> > high bitrates?), partly an "is it worth it" question about lossless
> > compared to high-bitrate compared to not-so-high bitrate encoding.
> >
> > So, could someone comment?
> >
> > Many thanks,
> >
> >     -- Joe
> The higher bitrate you use you obviously get closer to lossless. So it
> really becomes a question of acceptable file-size and HW support.
> At high bitrates, you'll hear no difference between _any_ codecs. I've
> done studio testing to the effect. Most tests you'll find online test
> low bitrates also. That's where you see the difference and Vorbis
> usually does very well here.
> So what is the target HW you use for playback? PMP (iPod) ? HTPS?
> -Cory \m/

If you are interested in listening tests I recommend hydrogenaudio.org.
The reason for me encoding in a lossless format is not so much weather
I can hear the difference but about having the option to transcode
however I like and having 'the original' in a digitised form.

If you want to test lossless files, read up on blind listening tests,
start your test at some standard setting and work from there to see
what's transparent or acceptable to you.

Best Regards,

More information about the Ubuntu-Studio-users mailing list