Ogg vs. MP3

Post by **Gambit37** » Mon Jan 30, 2006 12:16 pm

You can convert OGG to MP3, though unless you use a high bit rate, you'll degrade the quality again. DMC is great for that:

http://www.dbpoweramp.com/dmc.htm

Stop using "soon"? Who, me?

*walks away and whistles innocently, taking a sneaky peek at my interviews folder in the process*

PadTheMad · Post by **PadTheMad** » Mon Jan 30, 2006 1:44 pm

I noticed that DMC smacked a trial period on converting to MP3 for some lame reason, however I found some of the older versions with no limit lying around on my old computer

Post by **Gambit37** » Mon Jan 30, 2006 2:02 pm

Yeah, I've stuck with older versions too!

Post by **linflas** » Mon Jan 30, 2006 3:39 pm

converting ogg to mp3 ? anyone not using winamp here ?

mikko · Post by **mikko** » Mon Jan 30, 2006 5:35 pm

Yeah, or use foobar2000.. It's way better.

Anyway, converting ogg to mp3 is in my mind just plain stupid. If you convert from one lossy codec to another, you will absolutely positively degrade the quality no matter what. And here you would even be converting to an inferior format..

Post by **Gambit37** » Mon Jan 30, 2006 7:23 pm

For general stuff most people never notice the difference. There's way too much snobbery over 'high bit rate/high quality' discussions. The average person using average equipment can't tell any difference between a 128Kbps MP3 and a 192Kbps MP3. Even 96Kbps is often adequate.

beowuuf · Post by **beowuuf** » Mon Jan 30, 2006 7:35 pm

Usually its more noticeable when you lose sound, rather than sound quality - I hate encoded mp3s that are quiet no matter your volume

Octopuss · Post by **Octopuss** » Mon Jan 30, 2006 7:56 pm

Exactly. I probably don't have ears of a dog, but I am not deaf either. I say 95% of people cant even tell difference between 128 and 320kbit. I tried to do some pseudo-testing on big speakers with various songs of every possible genre and various bitrates, and couldn't hear ANY difference at all.

beowuuf · Post by **beowuuf** » Mon Jan 30, 2006 8:01 pm

Just to be OT, octupuss, you don't need to quote when replying to obvious posts close - it just tends to clutter up the page and also cause poor modem people more downloading! : )

*haha, beat Gambit to the punch there!*

PadTheMad · Post by **PadTheMad** » Mon Jan 30, 2006 8:49 pm

I don't use Winamp because they stopped updating it

If you REALLY don't want to convert OGG -> MP3, why don't you go OGG -> WAV -> MP3?

I think people can tell the difference between 128 and 320 tho - 128 gets quite tinny at higher freqs.

Post by **Gambit37** » Mon Jan 30, 2006 9:01 pm

Eh? Going to WAV between the two won't make ANY difference at all. The WAV will still be the compressed OGG waveform.

Post by **linflas** » Mon Jan 30, 2006 9:17 pm

PadTheMad wrote:I don't use Winamp because they stopped updating it

or you stopped downloading it maybe

mikko · Post by **mikko** » Mon Jan 30, 2006 9:17 pm

Of course, 128kbit mp3 is usually enough. But with ogg you could have smaller bit rate and a smaller file size. Not that it matters these days with 200GB and bigger hard disks..

And of course ogg vorbis is completely open and patent free, which is nice.. But the main thing I hate about mp3 is that if I have two songs that dont have a pause between them (for example live recordings)... there _will_ be a nasty gap with mp3 when you are listening them..

Personally I don't have a single reason why I should use mp3 and not ogg. But many reasons to use ogg instead of mp3.. But what ever you might prefer, the sound quality suffers if you convert between lossy formats. Even if you convert an mp3 to another mp3 with different bit rate. And if it's done many times, it gets even worse.. It's really annoying to bump into 128 or more kbit mp3 files that sound like random 32kbit noise.

Post by **Gambit37** » Mon Jan 30, 2006 10:06 pm

I split this topic as it has gone way OT.

PadTheMad · Post by **PadTheMad** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 3:16 am

Gambit37 wrote:Eh? Going to WAV between the two won't make ANY difference at all. The WAV will still be the compressed OGG waveform.

Oopsie daisy, don't know what I was thinking when I wrote that.

There was some prob some twistedl logic in there somewhere but you're right, my bad

Linflas wrote:or you stopped downloading it maybe :Smile:

Funnily enough I re-downloaded it the other week to do some converting of .usf (Nintendo 64 Soundtrack) files. Winamp did have some cool features, not to mention large third-party plugin support.

Gambit37 wrote:I split this topic as it has gone way OT.

We wouldn't want to break from tradition now would we

Adamo · Post by **Adamo** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 9:58 am

Not that it matters these days with 200GB and bigger hard disks..

well I still got my 1 Gb HD (compressed to 1.7 Gb, but XP eats half its capacity), 366 Mhz, 96 Mb mem (of wchich I think only 64 Mb works) and some other antiques and it`s enouhg for playing DM and use DM tools (thanx to Paul that CSBwin runs perfectly on old machines!)

beowuuf · Post by **beowuuf** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 11:44 am

366MHz 96Mb WITH XP???!!!

Bah, these days you upgrade 98 and have something like Norton and you cripple an old, good machine...really internet capability and new programmes just aren't worth having!

mikko · Post by **mikko** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 4:57 pm

366 kiloherzt would be nice one wuuf..

I imagine XP is barely usable with 366MHz machine with just 96MB (or 64?) memory.. Isn't the recommended minimum something like 128MB? My task manager tells me that the kernel only is using about 86MB right now..

Hmm.. This is going OT again btw..

beowuuf · Post by **beowuuf** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 5:07 pm

*innocently whistles*

YEah, the 'recommended minimum' is 128Mb, but seems to run annoying on anything less than 256 usually...

We can split it again...it's like a virus that grows and divides

Post by **PaulH** » Tue Feb 14, 2006 12:06 am

Adding to the original posts about sound quality and bit rates, burning mp3 files onto CDs at various rates and listening through my dedicated HiFi set up and studio monitor speakers, the difference is easy to hear. I never use MP3s for serious listening. OK for the computer in the background maybe, but the songs 'come alive' on the hifi

Szopen · Post by **Szopen** » Sat Feb 18, 2006 12:45 am

I belive converting ogg to mp3 is not so good idea. Why? Almost every operation on signal (non-ideal so real) or data causes loss and deformation. Also it seems to me that ogg codecs are usually more effective than mp3 codecs. I checked it once using low (very low) bitrates. And it is true. I guess it will be true also with higher bitrates. But not necessary. Mp3s are more popular though. I belive also that difference between 128kbit and 320kbit mp3s can be easily heard by ear by any person with healthy hearing. The problems here can be caused by bad quality devices or bad quality source data, I belive. If source data is in very bad condition you'll simple not hear anything no matter whether mp3 is 128kbit or 320kbit.

PS: Sorry for my English.

Post by **cowsmanaut** » Sat Feb 18, 2006 6:56 am

yes but my portable MP3 player doesn't play ogg.. just WMV and MP3.. so there is reason to go back to MP3 if you only have OGG for some songs.

moo

Post by **PaulH** » Sat Feb 18, 2006 5:29 pm

Has anyone actually put 5000 songs on an mp3 player?! Personally I would be tempted to use the highest bit rate possible, buy some decent headphones and allow that extra capacity to improve the quality of the recording.

PadTheMad · Post by **PadTheMad** » Sat Feb 18, 2006 5:49 pm

I'm quite an audiophile where music's concerned and I've got about 6 or so albums on my 1GB memory stick in 160Kbs and that suffices for me (I rip my CDs to my PC at 192Kbs). I'm using 18 quid Sony earphones and the bass on them is wicked, the only things that sound better are those newer earbud things but I don't like them - they feel nasty in my ears

Post by **PaulH** » Sat Feb 18, 2006 7:00 pm

I suppose in the end it is what ever suits you best. Your ears do actually get used to certain conditions, and whenever I listen to other peoples hifi systems I immediately think 'that bass is lean/over blown etc' because my ears have become accustomed to my own set up. The same goes for mp3s. You simply get used to them eventually. But then you go back to the expensive hifi and think 'OMG! This sounds SO much better!' By 'better', I mean the dynamics and treble detail are obviously improved.
MP3 has its place I think for ease of use, portability and on the move media, computers for background and if you must have to put 1000s of tracks onto a storage device. But to get the most out of your music and really hear what is there I recommend buying a seperates hifi system that you have auditioned. Personally, I prefer the sound of vinyl to CDs!!!

Szopen · Post by **Szopen** » Sat Feb 18, 2006 7:28 pm

Paul, could you explain why you prefer vinyls to CDs? I've heard such opinions before and I am curious about reasons and details.

Adamo · Post by **Adamo** » Sat Feb 18, 2006 7:50 pm

I imagine XP is barely usable with 366MHz machine with just 96MB (or 64?) memory.. (...)

well, I don`t have any problem using it. Everything seems to work fine. The only problem is that my HD works very very slowly - but it`s my fault, it`s all formatted from 1 Gb to about 1.7 Gb. Java programs also runs slowly. Oh, and when I`m listening to music from the net (radio) and running GIMP at the same time, winamp sometimes turn off.
The only problem I`ve got is that RTC runs too slow!!

Post by **PaulH** » Sat Feb 18, 2006 7:57 pm

If you take what I said above about the improvement in quality of sound of a recording in MP3 to CD, I think vinyl takes this a little further. On my system anyway, top end is more refined and detailed and there seems to be a greater depth to the stereo image. Bass seems to have less 'colour' too. Its hard to sum up sometimes, but I would say it has a warmer more organic sound rather than a harsh 'digital' one. And a lot of you are going to be thinking I am talking complete bollocks!

This is all subjective, and varies greatly from system to system and room conditions. And original recording quality/conditions has a large impact regardless of the media.

My kit is by no means expensive: Marantz CD4000 (with Philips transport) CD player, Cyrus2 mk3 amp with PSX external power supply, Eltax monitor III speakers (also Acoustic Solutions av105 floorstanders, and Eltax DX50 that I sometimes use), Technics turntable using the cyrus phono stage and QED cables.
Its only the amp I really splashed out on. Has a 500+200VA transformer, could drive a brick wall!

Szopen · Post by **Szopen** » Sat Feb 18, 2006 8:38 pm

Yes, I've heard of vinyl sound being 'warmer' than CD sound. Or in general, analog sound being warmer than digital sound. I guess then it can't be only complete bollocks, Paul.

But how about loss and noise? Signal to Noise ratio seems to be lower in vinyl than in CD. Or am I wrong? Also it seems to me that vinyl (or analog) is much more vulnerable to media damage. When vinyl is damaged it can be almost immediately and easily heard, can't it? In CD (due to digital features) there is correction coding. And even large crack on CD could not be heard. Read errors simply can be restored or interpolated in CD (digital). If I am wrong in any of this, please correct me.

Post by **PaulH** » Sat Feb 18, 2006 9:24 pm

Yes, noise can be a problem and you are correct in the SNR being lower. This can affect the overall perceived quality of playback, but I still think the overall timing and timbre of instruments sounds better. And they certainly do get damaged a lot easier, they are for patient people only!

To be honest, I rarely play vinyl as I started my collection on CD before I really listened to vinyl. Some CD players have a more 'analog' sound to them as in 'warmth', others can sound very harsh. This mainly depends on the quality of DAC.