|
Tabula Rasa
In
fact, no one expected such a result: of course, everybody
thought that the manufacturers’ promises about “almost CD-quality”
or even “CD-quality” were pure fiction but one could suppose
that the different audio-formats do not differ that much concerning
sound-quality. But that’s especially where some noticable
differences arise. Right now there are two high-end-formats
at the very top that have been sadly smiled upon a few years
ago. The lowest-quality format of the ones tested is however
the long-proven MP3.
And
yet, the only real “loser” of these tests has emerged quite
clearly: not only does VQF offer a worse sound-quality
than anyone should accept in the presented bitrates, but also
the tremendously long-lasting encoding time and the fact that
VQF is hardly known anywhere almost disqualify the format
even before the sound-tests. What good is a sound-format no
one uses except yourself and that takes up to two hours to
encode an average 60 minutes running time CD? And above all
its sound-quality is not completely convincing anyway. On
the VQF-homepage it’s claimed that thousands of songs can
be found on the internet, at music exchange programs like
Napster however, VQF isn’t represented at all.
MP3
is, regarding its sound-quality, surely worse than VQF at
the same bitrates - that would mean also at 128 kbps - that
statement can be made due to the results at 96 kbps quite
certain - if it was techincally possible to encode VQF at
128 kbps . MP3 however benefits from being known all over
the world and its support by many hardware MP3-players and
last but not least, its popularity. This is why MP3 won’t
be pushed off the market in the next few years. The roots
it has in the internet and the portable MP3-players reach
way too deep for that. Even most DVD-players offer MP3-support.
It’s
successor mp3PRO is really not as good as promised
but the technology obviously hasn’t rested. The sound-quality
at these low bitrates is not fantastic but certainly remarkable.
In the long term mp3PRO will quite possibly settle a standard
whether as a substitute or a companion to MP3 - who knows,
mp3PRO does have some convincing advantages concerning portable
MP3-players where the prices for memory-sticks are not as
low to accept double filesize instead. How good the codec
actually is, has to prove itself, since the 64 kbps-limitation
doesn’t allow a final result. But the result will most likeably
be the same like WMA or OGG: with classical music CD-quality
is given only at 128 kbps; pop-music however sounds almost
like CD when encoded at 96 kbps or even a higher bitrate.
Once again you may ask whether MP3, WMA and OGG aren’t enough
standards for the time being. Above all mp3PRO doesn’t offer
the important 100 % backwards compatibility like WMA does,
that actually shows when playing mp3PRO songs with an ordinary
MP3-player: the songs sound very mustly and rustled. mp3PRO
also needs a better hardware than WMA as you can hear in the
little interruptions while seeking through the individual
songs. Unfortunately the mp3PRO-encoder won’t be free of charge
and third-party-manufacturers that will offer their own mp3PRO-encoders
later on won’t use the original codec technology which will
result in different compression-ratios and (as known from
MP3) quality-differences - mp3PRO won’t be the same as mp3PRO
then.
WMA
had a very heavy start, especially version 7 that was designed
as a substitute to MP3 and that became its toughest opponent;
that was mainly because it lacked the quality MP3 had, but
since then a lot of things have changed. Version 8 of Microsoft’s
product beats MP3 clearly in every single point. However the
format still has the same old problems: many users are not
willing to give up the MP3-collection they have gathered the
last few years. Compatibility is one of the magic words and
WMA certainly has advantages here in favour of mp3PRO. It
is 100 % backwards compatible and even the interruptions that
occur when seeking through songs are (despite similar comression
ratios) not that big. The most convincing reason for WMA instead
of mp3PRO certainly is the fact that mp3PRO is not free of
charge. You can encode WMAs for free with the Windows Media-encoder
Microsoft offers on their website. Using the WM8-encoder-frontend
this is a cheaper solution than the mp3PRO-encoder on which
is a charge when encoding in higher bitrates than 64 kbps.
This is why all WMAs are actually encoded with the same codec.
The
“old” newcomer OGG became a quiet tip for audio-collectors
in a very short period of time. The reason for this only becomes
obvious when listening to OGG-files closer, for example by
converting them back to WAV. The well-known OGG-plugins for
the very popular software-player WinAmp make OGG-songs sound
worse than they really are. Maybe this changes once the final
version of the plugin is published. OGG has by now many many
fans out there, this is why OGG is most likely to exist longer
than VQF. Unfortunately it is not represented that much at
the music exchange programs or anywhere in the internet like
MP3 or WMA.
No one can tell which format is to remain forever, that completely
depends on the users themselves. There is a saying that says
“competition livens up business”, that would mean the new
audio-formats can do no harm. Fraunhofer unintentionally showed
with their own MP3-successor AAC (Advanced Audio Coding),
developed in 1999, that most formats won’t stand a chance
in the long term. And yet the MPEG-standard put great hopes
in the new format. Whether they will succeed with it - unlikely
since hardly anyone has heard of AAC in the last few years
and on the other hand Fraunhofer seems to favour the new MP3-successor
mp3PRO themselves. The time to mothball one’s MP3-collection
is far from coming. Even the new Windows Media player will
be able to play MP3-files like most other software-players
as well. However it is certainly time to consider a change
to another format than MP3 since 100 megabytes more WMA- or
OGG-files fit on an ordinary CD at the same quality of MP3.
Or the same number of files in an audibly higher quality.
Since most portable MP3-players support WMA-files this certainly
is not the worst idea to think about.
It’ll have to prove itself which format will last in the long
term: MP3 is very popular and well known all over the world,
OGG has got a marvelous reputation, where to Microsoft has
the better product regarding MP3 and it is firmly integrated
in all existing operating systems and even those to come
Especially the poor OGG-support by music- and multimedia-companies
will give the outstanding format a very tough time.
We also have to wait till the physical limits of audio-compressions
are reached. At least at an acceptable, hardly audible loss
of quality. Sooner or later the developers will reach some
limits here although mp3PRO, OGG and WMA are certainly very
close to these.
Because of compatibility, popularity and the soft- and hardware-support,
home-users should decide in favour of Microsoft’s product
(WMA).
There are however only two bitrates one should choose in order
to get the best sound-quality without any audible differences
to the original files:
- with
classical music: 160 kbps
- with
rock/pop-music: 128 kbps
Everybody
who still uses the long-proven MP3 should take the
following bitrates to get the best sound-quality without any
audible differences to the original files:
- with
classical music: 192 kbps
- with
rock/pop-music: 160 kbps
At
lower bitrates a significant loss of quality is audible with
both audio-formats after encoding / decoding the files a second
time.
[TOP]
|
