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]
|