I read the sticky, and it mentions which version is best for below 160, and over 180.

Is either version mentioned better than the other at 160 nominal?

GT3b1 is the best for high bitrates. For example -q5 and up are further optimised in GT3b1.

I was hoping for something that be around 160 bitrate.

GT3B1 at quality 5 gives what, 180 bitrate? If I lowered the quality of this version so that the bitrate was exactly 160, would it sound the same/worse/better that 1.01 at quality 5?

Im sure both versions of OggEnc are exactly the same below -q5

well, what I meant was that with 1.0.1 I can set the quality to 5, and the bitrate is around 160. With GT3B1, I have to lower the quality to 4.6 to get the same bitrate.


So, would they sound the same with different quality value but same bitrate?



also, thanks for the help, I'm hope I'm not being a total annoyance...

sure? I thought between q4 and q5 it interpolates the settings and thus would make use of garf's tunings in varying amount. More so the closer to 5 you get.

@Eriks - maybe you are right!

@tsioc -
its possible


I just encoded a file using the same settings as you and got different results. for example, 1.0.1 was at 182Kbps and GT3 was at 215Kbps. So, I think this type of comparison is not possible. I think the best think to do is to abx both and use which ever sounds best for you.

Interesting point. The difference in quality-to-bitrate conversions does present a dilemma.

Given that GT3b1 has better transient and pre-echo handling in addition to the observation that the tunings in GT3b1 also affect most of the q 4 to 5 range, I suspect that you would get better performance by using GT3b1 and scaling the quality down until you get an average of 160. GT3b1 adjusts the instantaneous bitrates much more freely than 1.0.1.