Old 3rd April 2002, 05:52   #1
Nofx Guy
Major Dude
 
Nofx Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: under a rock
Posts: 998
Send a message via ICQ to Nofx Guy
Ogg --> best kbps

well i searched this in the forums and couldnt find a reasonable answer..

i was just wondering what would be a good kbps to encode music into ogg, which would give better of equivalent quality to that of a 192kbps mp3?

thnx...

www.audioflo.ath.cx
All music, All the Time
Nofx Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd April 2002, 05:56   #2
tjb2004
Major Dude
 
tjb2004's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Rocky River, Ohio.
Posts: 1,881
Send a message via AIM to tjb2004
Just use mp3.
If not:
GOOGLE
tjb2004 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd April 2002, 06:00   #3
Rocker
Hiding in plain sight (mod)
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 9,908
try around 130kbps....

130kbps sounds perfect to me in ogg format
unlike 128kbps MP3
Rocker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd April 2002, 07:27   #4
tiger84
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: 101010
Posts: 750
I have a question

What is this ogg you speak of, I have never heard of such a thing.

Oh, bye the way, you know 128 kbps sounds pretty true to life, I mean you can't really tell a difference unless you are either listening to classical music (even then the highest bitrate sucks) or really paying attention to the sound.

If life calls and you're busy, let the answering machine pick-up.

Just so you know, my previous avatar was NOT a swastika, nor did it have much similarity to one. Just thought I'd clear that up since I cannot use my own original art work.
tiger84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd April 2002, 08:23   #5
Anacific
Major Dude
 
Anacific's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 1,744
Send a message via AIM to Anacific
For me -q 5 sounds good enough

"He who desires but acts not, breeds pestilence." - William Blake
WSPA | WWF | RSPCA | AAPA | Green Peace - Know and help...
The Rainforest Site | The Animal Rescue Site - Click and help...
Anacific is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd April 2002, 08:35   #6
Vica
Major Dude
 
Vica's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: St. Vincent & the Grenadines
Posts: 872
Send a message via ICQ to Vica Send a message via AIM to Vica Send a message via Yahoo to Vica
Re: I have a question

Quote:
Originally posted by tiger84
What is this ogg you speak of, I have never heard of such a thing.
Ogg Vorbis, basicly the future for compressed audio as the next step up after mp3s.


Website: Template vbulletin skins by exaltic.com[size=0.75]
Skins/Coding: D-Shock, Nebular, Triton [/size]
Vica is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd April 2002, 21:11   #7
YtseJam
Forum King
 
YtseJam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Israel
Posts: 2,399
Send a message via ICQ to YtseJam Send a message via AIM to YtseJam
I always use 192kbps and if I remember correctly, q=6.
YtseJam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd April 2002, 21:15   #8
apollos
Forum King
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Canterbury & Plymouth
Posts: 4,176
320 Kps is sweet! Bigger file but quality is what i look for! I also notice that there is a difference between Whenever Wherever 128kps one and 320Kps version. The 320 doesn't distort and the quieter little bits of the song are sharper! I am one of those people who sits down and vigourously compares quality of music!
I even notice differnces between 128 and 192!


Yes, i am pretty sad!
apollos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd April 2002, 23:17   #9
Anacific
Major Dude
 
Anacific's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 1,744
Send a message via AIM to Anacific
Why bother? Stick with WAVs

"He who desires but acts not, breeds pestilence." - William Blake
WSPA | WWF | RSPCA | AAPA | Green Peace - Know and help...
The Rainforest Site | The Animal Rescue Site - Click and help...
Anacific is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th April 2002, 02:44   #10
ujay
Forum King
 
ujay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: London
Posts: 6,072
I think I shall be sticking with Mp3 for a while yet.

There is hardly any difference in file size, I can't hear any difference in quality, but above all it's over 3 times quicker than Ogg Vorbis.

UJ
ujay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th April 2002, 03:22   #11
GoldenSphynx
Forum King
 
GoldenSphynx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,738
i like 128 mp3's to share with my friends but if im burnin a cd...definately i go with wavs
GoldenSphynx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th April 2002, 15:16   #12
apollos
Forum King
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Canterbury & Plymouth
Posts: 4,176
Quote:
Originally posted by GoldenSphinx86
i like 128 mp3's to share with my friends but if im burnin a cd...definately i go with wavs
Why the wavs??
apollos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th April 2002, 15:30   #13
ujay
Forum King
 
ujay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: London
Posts: 6,072
Quote:
Originally posted by andrewsanders
Why the wavs??
Because if you don't you get

Original CD to Mp3 - lossy
Mp3 to wav - more loss
wav to copy CD.

I use wav all the time, most of the stuff I burn is from old LPs and tapes and needs to be in wav format before they can be cleaning up.

UJ
ujay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th April 2002, 18:52   #14
ujay
Forum King
 
ujay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: London
Posts: 6,072
You are right of course Sawg, it shouldn't get any worse

What sort of compression can you get with said Monkey's Audio ?

At the momment the wav files I make only exist until they are burnt to CD, and then archived on the HDD as Mp3.

What are the prospects of Ogg Vorbis speeding up a bit, I find it very slow. Or is that a consequence of the VBR.

UJ
ujay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th April 2002, 19:07   #15
ujay
Forum King
 
ujay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: London
Posts: 6,072
Thanks Sawg

UJ
ujay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th May 2002, 22:09   #16
waroxhardcore
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 4
also if you're (anybody) interested in lossless compression check out the flac format, I like it better than monkey's audio because it decodes faster

also, it provides playback on many OSs and source code to allow playback even on unsupported OSs

check it out at http://flac.sourceforge.net/
waroxhardcore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th May 2002, 08:54   #17
prodangle
Major Dude
 
prodangle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Scotland
Posts: 718
I can definately notice the differance between 128 and 192kbps mp3 in most songs. I think it is very obvious if you have a half decent speakers/amp combo, but maybe not so obvious if you are using PC speakers or a crappy sound card.
I'd love to use 130 ogg and save a bit of space, but it's not very handy for my mp3 player. I'd have to convert everything from ogg->mp3 before transferring it, which would be a bit of a pain.
prodangle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th May 2002, 09:01   #18
KiwiFreak
Major Dude
 
KiwiFreak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 505
OK...A question about this ogg thing.

I've run out of space on my hard drive and over half of it is full with MP3s, is it worth converting the MP3s to OGGs?
Will there be loss going from MP3 to OGG?
And most importantly, does Winamp support OGG?

If you think you can or think you can't...you're right.
KiwiFreak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th May 2002, 09:15   #19
prodangle
Major Dude
 
prodangle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Scotland
Posts: 718
Before Sawg jumps in, converting from one lossy format to another will always result in more loss. You'd be beter off leaving the old files as they are.
The ogg plugin for WA has been around for a while now, and 2.8 comes with ogg support.
prodangle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th May 2002, 09:25   #20
KiwiFreak
Major Dude
 
KiwiFreak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 505
I'm happy with that answer, it would have meant to much work converting 1700 MP3s

If you think you can or think you can't...you're right.
KiwiFreak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th May 2002, 11:53   #21
kljs
Major Dude
 
kljs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Kulim,Kedah,Malaysia
Posts: 645
Send a message via ICQ to kljs



Tell me,it this good or bad?

I am just a normal person sitting on the bench and reading newspaper and having a cup of coffee. Why can't people see that?
kljs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th May 2002, 13:39   #22
Rocker
Hiding in plain sight (mod)
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 9,908
bit of a waste of hard disk actually

you won't notice the difference between .5 and 1.0 even on a high end hifi system

even .4 isn't bad
Rocker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th May 2002, 17:42   #23
james
Forum PFY
(Major Dude)
 
james's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: WR3 or NG7 Posts: 6.2+3i
Posts: 1,698
Plus, the lower the bitrate the less often the player has to read from the disk, thus the more you can get done in the meanwhile (such as ripping CDs )

He uses statistics like a drunk uses lamp-posts: for support, not illumination.
james is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Go Back   Winamp & SHOUTcast Forums > Community Center > General Discussions

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump