On Sunday 07 December 2003 21:46, Spider wrote: > begin quote > On Sun, 7 Dec 2003 21:34:14 +0200 > > Sami N��t�nen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thursday 04 December 2003 16:45, Robert Cernansky wrote: > > > On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 15:56:49 +0200 Sami N��tanen > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > SN> For higher bit rates ogg produces worse quality, but same > > > goes between > > > > > > Worse than what? Worse than ogg on lower bitrates or worse than > > > mp3 on same bitrate? > > > > Worse than mp3 on same bitrate. > > > > Same goes for mp2 and mp3 too. > > That's simply the difference of the encodings used. > > > > After all all lossy compressions have a point of no return. The > > point where the amount of bits you allow wont help, because the > > filtering has removed the needed information before the actual > > encoding. > > Check your CFLAGS, vorbis sounds -bad- when overoptimized. Its not > even a bug, its a case of pebkac.
-O2 hardly an over optimized, but this still could be the issue, because it is a binary version of a windows CD ripper, which I like to use. Besides I found out that when I used lower bitrates the vorbis sounded much better than the mp3. The vorbis some how mangles the sound more. It is more clear, but wrong. The bell and guitars of the song sounded simply different than the high rate mpx's and the original wav. I listened the CD through a good CD player too to see if it would be the computer audio that made that, but I didn't hear any difference. My wife heard the difference in blind test, but we has this quite pricy CD player and the pair of headphones so these classic musicians are quite good quality testers.. ;) -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
