|
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]
|
