Two songs were taken as
reference in order to assure the best sound-quality for each
of the two tested categories of music:
- Setting The Trap from the “Home
Alone” Soundtrack, composed by John Williams,
as a reference for classical music with big orchestra.
- So Far Away from the album “Brothers
in Arms (Remastered)”, by Dire Straits. This
album was bestowed several times for it’s outstanding
sound-quality and it is taken here to demonstrate the
quality of the audio-formats regarding modern pop-music.
Both in the tests and the comparisons, you will be able to
download sound-samples of each compression. Just click on the
bitrates (kbps) in each case. All files in this test were
converted at a constant bitrate to assure the best quality
possible.
The individual files were converted with
these programs:
- MP3: Audio Conversion Wizard 0.97b (LAME 3.70 Encoder)
- WMA: Audio Conversion Wizard 0.97b (Windows Media Audio
8)
- OGG: Audio Conversion Wizard 0.97b
- VQF: Twin VQ Encoder 2.1
- mp3PRO: Thomson mp3PRO Encoder Demo 1.0.2
Afterwards the files were decoded to WAV with the according
programs and played using the Windows Media Player
7.0. This way it was avoided that a possible lack of
quality was due to the individual players’ decoder. The source
files were of course taken from the original CDs. The
WAV-files had the following format: 44100 hz, 16 bit,
stereo. All ratings refer to the sound-quality in per cent
of the source files (rating: 100 %).
Source files: John
Williams - Home Alone - Setting The Trap:
length: 2:16 size: 22.9
MB Dire Straits -
Brothers In Arms - So Far Away:
length: 5:11 size: 52.4 MB
[TOP]
The Test
1. John Williams - “Home Alone”
- Setting The Trap
a) MP3: 96 kbps
- Regarding the original file the first thing to strike one’s
mind is the very dull sound. High frequency tones almost get
lost in the mustly noise. Fine and clear tones however sound
smeary and above all the bass is slightly stronger than in the
source file. (rating: 40%)
112 kbps - At the beginning of MP3 this bitrate
was said to be almost lossless. By now, most users have
accepted that this simply isn’t true. Still, the fine and
clear tones sound smeary, you even get the feeling you are
listening to a fidgetly running cassette-tape. The bass sounds
quite good now, crystal clear tones still seem as if they were
covered with a veil of some kind. (rating: 70
%) 128 kbps - MP3s
converted with this bitrate are most common by now, who would
be surprised - there’s hardly an audible difference to the
original. High frequency tones sound almost too clear.
Although the bass still sounds good and there is no smearing
any more, the song doesn’t sound as dynamic as the source file
does. (rating: 80 %)
b) WMA: 48 kbps
- The “almost CD-quality” Microsoft promises at this
bitrate turns out to be a bad joke: the smearing is unbearable
and the very mustly sound spoils one’s fun in listening to
this in the same way the small dropouts you can hear in the
background at high frequencies do. To crown it all the songs
sound somewhat metallic and at some silent moments you can
hear a constant background-noise that is of course missing in
the original song. Above all, the song lacks the stereo-effect
the source file has. (rating: 20
%) 64 kbps -
“CD-quality”, that’s how Microsoft describes the quality at 64
kbps. Unfortunately they do not mention with which CDs they
have achieved it. A smearing sound all along the whole song,
at silent moments you can still hear a background-noise. High
frequency tones get lost in the mustly noise and sound
distortedly, even the metallic clattering is still there.
(rating: 40 %) 96 kbps
- There is still a smearing noise when playing very clear
and fine tones at 96 kbps. The metallic sound hasn’t gone
completely either. Very clear tones sound slightly dull.
Concerning the quality it is almost as good as an MP3
converted at 112 kbps. (rating: 65
%) 128 kbps - On the
contrary to MP3 there is really no difference audible to the
source file. Clear and fine tones are played without smearing
as well. The WMA seems a little more dynamic than the MP3.
(rating: 95 %)
c) OGG: 96 kbps
- OGG Vorbis really surprises here: almost no smearing at
high frequencies, the bass sounds a little stronger than the
original. In the big picture the 96 kbps OGG-file sounds
better than an MP3-file encoded at a bitrate of 112 kbps, but
still a little worse than a WMA-file at 128 kbps. Thus OGG
offers best sound-quality at this bitrate. (rating: 75
%) 128 kbps - Like the
WMA-file there is no difference to the original audible
whatsoever. You may say the song sounds almost too dynamic,
since some background-noises are threatened to get lost.
(rating: 95 %)
d) VQF: 80 kbps
- VQF also suprises here: you can hardly hear any of the
well-known smearing, on the other hand the song sounds way too
dull and the bass is way too strong. (rating: 60
%) 96 kbps - Once again
at 96 kbps there’s hardly any smearing audible, but still the
song sounds too mustly and seems to be covered by a veil. The
bass is now just the way it should be. (rating: 65
%)
e) mp3PRO: 64 kbps
- With the encoder-demo that is available at the time
being, sound-files can only be encoded at this bitrate. By
doing so, they want to interest users in the new audio-format.
Unfortunately, there is also a constant smearing sound audible
at high frequency tones and the song just sounds dull in
general. The bass is too strong and clear, fine tones get lost
and seem distorted. Maybe mp3PRO sounds like a 128 kbps WMA
when encoded at 96 kbps. (rating: 50 %)
[TOP]
2. Dire Straits - “Brothers In
Arms” - So Far Away
a) MP3: 96 kbps
- Like noticed with the classical song the first thing to
get aware of is the constant smearing sound. It also seems
dull, and clear and fine tones get “swallowed” by the
background-noise. Above all, the vocals appear to be
distorted. (rating: 30 %)
112 kbps - Although there’s still a smearing-sound, the
drums seem almost too clear and sterile. The bass sounds good;
however the vocals sound obviously wobbly, like played under
water. (rating: 45 %)
128 kbps - At 128 kbps there’s still a slight
smearing-sound audible in the singers’ voices. The drums don’t
sound 100 % like the original and the bass is a little too
weak. (rating: 80 %)
b) WMA: 48 kbps
- The tones sound too heavy in general, the constant
smearing and the drums’ metallic rattling disqualify this
bitrate for good. (rating: 25 %)
64 kbps - Still, the song sounds smeary and the
background somewhat metallic, the quality is however audibly
better than at 48 kbps. (rating: 45
%) 96 kbps - There’s a
completely different picture at 96 kbps: although the song
sounds slightly dull when there are high frequency tones, it
sounds dynamic and the bass seems very natural. The only thing
to complain about is the slight, but noticable smearing sound.
(rating: 80 %) 128
kbps - Unlike the MP3 there is no audible difference to
the original. The drums and the singing sound clear and clean.
No smearing, good dynamics and a naturally sounding bass.
(rating: 95 %)
c) OGG: 96 kbps
- OGG truly is a surprise here as well: the song sounds
hardly audibly dull when playing very clear drum-tones. No
smearing, good dynamics and a perfect bass. (rating: 90
%) 128 kbps - What’s to
say? It sounds like the WMA at 128 kbps: just like the
original. Clear, dynamically with a bass no one has to
complain about. (rating: 95 %)
d) VQF: 80 kbps
- The same weakness VQF had with the classical song does
unveil here, too: no smearing but a basically dull sound that
becomes apparent when playing the drums. The dynamics
generally sound a little too heavy. (rating: 70
%) 96 kbps - At 96 kbps
the song still sounds dull, but because there is no smearing
audible whatsoever, it has the same quality as an MP3
converted at 128 kbps. (rating: 80 %)
e) mp3PRO: 64 kbps
- When playing classical music the infirmities of mp3PRO
became indeed quite obvious. They are however not that
apparent when playing rock-/pop-songs. A slight smearing-sound
occurs when drums or vocals are played. Yet there’s hardly
more to complain about, except that some tones sound almost
too clear. (rating: 75 %)
[TOP]
|