[vorbis] WMA9 versus OGG

[Greg Trounson]

Tom Felker wrote:
> On Friday 27 February 2004 6:51 pm, Tom Page wrote:
> 
>>Hello all
>>
>>I have been encoding to OGG as a default for well over a year, but I
>>recently thought I ought to test how it sounds compared to other codecs. I
>>got the Windows Media 9 encoder and I was quite surprised at how bad a job
>>OGG did at quality 0 with a simple piano clip, and how well WMA9 was - I've
>>always considered WMA as being a bit naff, but WMA9 has forced me to
>>re-access this view
>>
>>Drop by
>>
>>http://www.tompagenet.co.uk/vorbis/
>>
>>to see if you agree or can offer any insight - shouldn't OGG beat WMA9 in
>>sound quality? The original is from the Lost in Translation sound track -
>>please don't download it too much - I do have limited bandwidth!
>>
>>Thanks, Tom
> 
> 
> Try this:
> 
> oggenc -q4 --resample 22050 AloneInKyotoClip.wav
> 
> The downsampling lets you encode at a higher quality (no artifacts) and 
> maintain the same bitrate.  I wish oggenc automatically did things like this 
> given a target bitrate, but oh well.  And there may be other tunings I don't 
> know about.
> 

Just wondering, is it legit to encode at non-standard rates such as 32000?

I tried your suggestion with some of my test samples, and while the 
artifacts were eliminated with -q4 --resample 22050, the overall quality 
was much worse due to the low sample rate.

I played around a bit, and using -q1 --resample 32000 gives (IMO) a 
better result, but with q1 I'm guessing artifacts may pop up depending 
on what your encoding.

Greg

<p>--- >8 ----
List archives:  http://www.xiph.org/archives/
Ogg project homepage: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/
To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to 'vorbis-request at xiph.org'
containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the body.  No subject is needed.
Unsubscribe messages sent to the list will be ignored/filtered.