Ogg VS mp3

[EricB]

I use VBRs.

128kbps sounds terrible. The lowest I ever use is 192.

Ogg sounds a lot better.

The Atrac3plus is the best compression I've heard so far but its only used for Sony players.

Its simular to AAC.

it is AAC. AAC originally came from sony minidisc

 

[Jamil]

AAC is better at lower bitrates. AAC encoded at 128K bitrate would reporduce the original a little better than Ogg encoded at quality 4. Ogg is superior at higher bitrates though. This would make sense, since Ogg allows for unlimited bitrates.

 

[EricB]

AAC is better at lower bitrates. AAC encoded at 128K bitrate would reporduce the original a little better than Ogg encoded at quality 4. Ogg is superior at higher bitrates though. This would make sense, since Ogg allows for unlimited bitrates.

Ogg is only superior at bitrate that's higher than AAC can go. depending on who encoder that you have, AAC can go higher than 320kbps too. A few years ago realone player AAC (Atrac) had a super high bitrate for it

but in reality, there is no sense in going higher than that as it will defeat the whole purpose of compression. you might as well leave as a whole AIFF or wave or apple lossless file

 

[Jamil]

Vorbis audio files using the quality setting uses variable bitrates. The size of the resulting Ogg file would be manageable. I have several Ogg files that are around ~20meg in size compressed from a WAV file that was over 200 meg. These files have sections with over a 700kbps data rate.

For portable devices, space is a concern. For audio quality on large hard drives, who cares about space?

 

[EricB]

Vorbis audio files using the quality setting uses variable bitrates. The size of the resulting Ogg file would be manageable. I have several Ogg files that are around ~20meg in size compressed from a WAV file that was over 200 meg. These files have sections with over a 700kbps data rate.

For portable devices, space is a concern. For audio quality on large hard drives, who cares about space?

I have like 500 gig on this computer now. so I probably could save all of my files to wav now, after I get rid of my movies. but in the begining I had 10 gigs. I also have 7700 songs, most of them cd rips for my thousands of cds. image if each one was a wav file

 

[dnoch]

???

128 kbps is fine for a person who doesn't have an ear for music,or a person with a small ipod or zen player and they want to maximize the amount of music that they put on it.

128kbps sucks when you compare it to the original source. but it is fine for a lot of people, because they don't know what good music is these days, anyway. it is more screaming these days, than music, so signal to noise ratio and frequency response doesn't matter much anymore

despite what people think, 80% of the world doesn't have an ear for music

I said it is okay for listening to softly. If you have basic computer speakers, you won't be able to tell the difference between 128 and 192. I personally like loud music, all of my music is between 192 and 320.

 

[EricB]

I said it is okay for listening to softly. If you have basic computer speakers, you won't be able to tell the difference between 128 and 192. I personally like loud music, all of my music is between 192 and 320.

true. computer speakers suck. even the high end ones. plastic enclosures, one note high bass and distorted highs.

I personally run mine through my stereo equipment.

 

[joshd]

ive been ripping at wma lossless.

does anyone know of a free tool to convert from this to mp3, as i may be getting an ipod or a zen when i have the money.

 

[dnoch]

Acoustica mp3 to wave converter plus. Not free, but not very expensive.

 

[EricB]

ive been ripping at wma lossless.

does anyone know of a free tool to convert from this to mp3, as i may be getting an ipod or a zen when i have the money.

Itunes if they aren't protected. An old version of winamp with the output stacker dll, if they are protected