xiphmont at xiph.org
Tue Mar 1 13:59:14 PST 2005
On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 05:35:40PM -0600, Borphee wrote:
> > The listeners I mentioned were comparing MP3 128k streams and 48k AACPlus
> > streams from the same organization. They have several streams running, and
> > the input audio is the same.
> It's possible some of it could just be the settings used for the mp3 stream.
> But, at its best, with an 'average' bit rate of 128kbps, mp3 should easily beat 48kbps aacplus. (Even at 128kbps cbr, I'd expect it to beat aacplus!)
Yes, add me as a 'me too' :-)
A decent 128kbps encoder should hand AAC+SBR its ass on a platter.
Respectable 128kbps mp3 encoders are very good today. "Something is
> >> But at lower 'streaming radio' rates, no, Vorbis isn't the best. It
> >> wasn't tuned / designed for those rates.
> >> Roberto's 32k rate listening test didn't show Vorbis in a good light... I
> >> doubt a 48k test would be much different.
> Also, I faintly remember there were some comments after the test.
> I think that maybe they used some poor settings or some resample issues or something. The result was that vorbis might not have been at its best.
Speculation aside, I would not have expected Vorbis to fare well at
32kbps. It simply wasn't tuned/designed for it. Vorbis (as it is
now) was designed to scale down to ~64kbs at a time when mp3 wasn't
yet respectable below 192kbps. Today's AAC is not actually the same
codec as the AAC everyone remembers from three years ago; they're
different, related but incompatable codecs taped together in a new
package under the original name. No worries, we will update Vorbis
similarly and keep the same name so no one knows the difference :-)
More information about the Vorbis