Glenn McCorkle wrote: > On Fri, 24 May 2002 06:05:33 -0700, Steve wrote: > > > On Fri, 24 May 2002, Ron Clarke wrote: > > >> > Why would anyone encode a recording to MP3 instead > >> > of ogg? > > >> Because not everyone has an OGG player, > > > Not everyone has an MP3 player either. ;-) > > >> and because MP3 is a touch smaller file size than OGG. > > > The one time I did side-by-side comparisons between > > a wav file encoded to both MP3 and ogg, the ogg format > > came out the winner. > > > Encode the wav file to achieve equal file sizes in ogg > > and MP3, and the ogg file sounds better. I suppose I should > > qualify that to say that the ogg sounds more "analog." > > Anyway... that's how it worked on the TWO *wav files I > > experimented with. Obviously, not enough to draw any > > general conclusions, especially since both recordings were > > so similar... both containing a guitar and a voice. > > > On top of the practical reasons though, is the fact > > that MP3 is proprietary while ogg is open. I *believe* > > that by making an MP3 recording (without paying the > > licensing fee), you are infringing on the MP3 patent. > > > With ogg, you don't even have to give such nonsense > > a second thought. > > I have just run my own test of OGG vs MP3 > > Track #2 of the new Celine Dion CD grabbed to WAV file with DAC.EXE > > CDNDHC02.WAV 44554000 5-25-02 9:55p - 44khz 16bit stereo 4:12 play time > CDNDHC02.OGG 10121304 5-25-02 10:13p - 350kbit/sec 14:12 encoding time > CDNDHC02.MP3 10103119 5-25-02 10:49p - 320kbit/sec 19:30 encoding time > > The MP3 is very slightly smaller. > But.... the MP3 is at 320kbit/sec while the OGG is at 350kbit/sec > > In addition, > The OGG file took only about a lot less time to encode. > And.... > Audiocv.exe places comments into the OGG right on the command line. > > Command lines used: > audiocv.exe -br 350 -ta celine_dion -tt right_in_front_of_me > cdndhc02.wav cdndhc02.ogg > (line broken for this eMail) > > bladeenc.exe -br 320 cdndhc02.wav cdndhc02.mp3 > (this is Blade encoder v0.925) > > IMHO, > OGG wins. > [snip]-- > Glenn
Remember that quality and size will vary depending on which mp3 encoder you use. See: http://www.arstechnica.com/wankerdesk/1q00/mp3/mp3-1.html for a nice comparison of four popular mp3 encoders. Of immeasurable assistance is: http://mp3.radified.com/. The audio codec comparison (http://mp3.radified.com/audio_codec_comparison.htm) and the Alternative lossy encoders ( http://mp3.radified.com/mp3.htm) pages are recommended. Also, has anyone here tried lossless encoding formats such as FLAC (http://flac.sourceforge.net/), Monkey's Audio (http://www.monkeysaudio.com/), RKAU ( http://rksoft.virtualave.net/rkau.html), etc.? See http://www.firstpr.com.au/audiocomp/lossless/ for a good start in the lossless aural sphere... david -- "Often the hands will solve a mystery that the intellect has struggled with in vain." -- Carl G. Jung
