OGG Vorbis: Disadvantages to using it?

cpujunky

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2007
3
0
18,510
0
Over the years I've amassed a large collection of MP3s, averaging around 128kbps in quality. Needless to say, it's taking up quite a bit of space. I've been looking more and more into converting all my MP3s into OGGs and I figure it'll use roughly half the space. I'm not big on transcoding because of quality loss, but from what I've tried so far, converting a CBR 128kbps Mp3 to a VBR 80kbsp OGG saves a lot of space with little to no loss in audio.

My question is...what are the disadvantages to using OGG Vorbis files? It seems like a hell of a good codec to me, just hasn't caught on. Suggestions?
 

joeSixpack

Distinguished
Feb 3, 2003
1
0
18,510
0
A couple of reasons not to use Ogg, you may or may not care about these:
1. Not widely accepted on non-computers, you'd have some trouble finding a small stand-alone player or a DVD that'll support them.
2. encoding is more CPU intensive, enough that you'll notice (~20% in my experience)
3. converting mp3's to Ogg's usually degrades the sound b/c they use different schemes to discard data, and so you end up with more discarded data that is inaudible
JSp
 

papasmurf

Distinguished
Apr 14, 2002
71
0
18,580
0
yeah here is a disadvantage: You are using OGG! there you have it. Not all systems are set up to play them and well sound quality decreases with size, I dont care how good the compression is. It is a fact. I say go with mp3's and find a bitrate that you like, I myself have all my mp3's encoded at 112bps. I find I like the quality well enough and they are not too big.

Fighting for peace is like screwing for abstinance!
 

papasmurf

Distinguished
Apr 14, 2002
71
0
18,580
0
wow sorry I was using some shat software when I tested it out. OGG seems like a good alternative if you only want to play it on your system. or if the other systems are set up right. sound quality is top notch and I am using it on my pocket pc to fit more songs on. a bit rate of 40kbps on ogg is comparable to a mp3 with a bit rate of 112kbps and they can be up to half the size.

In battle Israel uses F-16's and big ass tanks, Palestine uses small children strapped to bombs. Which do you support?
 

SaiyaJin

Distinguished
Dec 29, 2002
2
0
18,510
0
Ogg Vorbis is the best lossy codec ever, and it's open source. I believe the ONLY disadvantage is that is not popular enough. You are not going to find any portable players that plays it although some companies are working on it ('bout time), but if you only play on the computer you won't have a problem. Now transcoding is ALWAYS a bad idea no matter what codec you are using, you are better off leaving your mp3s as they are and from now on encode songs in Ogg format (if you're ripping from a CD that is). But if you absolutely MUST save some space, you could do like you said, transconding to a VBR Ogg Vorbis at around 80 or 96 kbps, shouldn't be that bad.
 

papasmurf

Distinguished
Apr 14, 2002
71
0
18,580
0
woah old thread! I use OGG on my pocket pc at 60-80kbps the files are about half the size of my 112kbps mp3 files (LAME OWNZ) and they sound wonderful. I have a 128mb compact flash card installed on my pocket pc and the thing has 40 ogg files on it. those same files in mp3 on my 128mb mp3 player fill it up completly. on the pocket pc I still have 80mb for programs, stand up commedy movies, family guy and south park ahhaaha use ogg if you need extra space. As much as I hate it wma9 is better than ogg but that is NOT open source so only windows media player 9 can use the files. worthless.

Treat your signature like a toothbrush: Don't let anyone else use it, and get a new one every few months.
 
G

Guest

Guest
A WMA9 file at 64kbps is sounds as good as a 128kbps mp3. It's amazing but my MP3/WMA CD player doesn't support it. If you just want to store music on your computer the new WMA-super-compressed format is best.

"He took the seat of his own bike because the way that it felt."
-Blink 182
 

r2k

Distinguished
Jan 27, 2001
13
0
18,560
0
OMG no, this is wrong! Have you listened and compared these files with a good sound card+good speakers or (better) headphones? A 128kbit/s MP3 will have quite a bit higher detail and transparency, much more air and sense of soundstage. Not that 128kbit/s MP3s (especially those encoded with shitty encoders like Xing) are anything special. With my system (Audigy, Denon integrated amplifier, B&W loudspeakers) I can differentiate between 192kbit/s MP3s and their source CDs much of the time.

It's true though that for 96kbit/s and under (if you compare identical or close bitrates), WMA and OGG do a much better job than MP3 (even when encoded with LAME). This doesn't automatically make them comparable or equal to higher bitrate MP3s though.
 

alejandrolanza

Distinguished
Mar 14, 2003
2
0
18,510
0
What do you recommend for mp3 ripping/encoding? I'm using AudioCatalyst 2.0 and just yesterday I found a CD that I'm not really comfortable with. It's strange, I've always used 160kbit mp3's with the xing encoder and been pleased. Now this CD is a copy and sounds good, except it kind of has that sound... remember when you recorded tapes and you didn't turn off the equalizer from the source deck? you know, the result was a tape that was bit too loud, too crisp, distorted percussion, specially floor toms; well this copied CD has just a bit of that, but when I encode it, it gets much worse. So I thought it was the Xing encoder everyone seems to despise, but then I did a test by just ripping a sample song (the most problematic one) to wav and it's there! what do you suggest? And a question, the DAE process happens through the IDE right? I mean, the analog cables from the drive to the sound card have nothing to do with ripping right? I ask this because recently I bought an LTD166s DVD and I put it to CD input and left my old burner (Sony crx100, 24-4-2 X)to the AUX input of my soundcard (TB montego II). I use win98se.
Thanks in advance.

A.Lanza
 

r2k

Distinguished
Jan 27, 2001
13
0
18,560
0
I don't know what encoding engine AudioCatalyst uses but I've got experiences with Xing and it was AWFUL. I mean, the sound was so thrashy, distorted and muffled I could never stand even those encoded at 256kbit/s.

The best MP3 encoder hands down is LAME. LAME is a free open source project and from version 3.92 and up they've really upped the ante on quality. LAME is very very versatile and has the best VBR algorithms (in terms of quality encoding) to use. It has presets that encode at specially optimized VBR settings and are great if you don't bother with lossless compressors (like Monkey Audio or FLAC) and want to preserve as much of your music as you can. Remember that LAME is a command-line program although you can find many graphical front ends for it too. Check here for more info: http://www.mp3dev.org/

As to your problems with the copy CD, I suggest (if the original is in fact better) first ripping the tracks to HD with a good precise ripping program (EAC or CDex, these are the best tools for the job, both are free) and then using the burning program to burn the WAVE files to the CD-R at lower speeds. Why lower speeds? Because there's less chance of jitter (I suspect your problem is in fact jitter) being introduced into the recorded disc and as such, less cold and thrashy 'digital' sound. 8x-12x should both be safe. This way, you can also be sure that any half-decent CD player reads the CDs without any problems.
 

papasmurf

Distinguished
Apr 14, 2002
71
0
18,580
0
wtf are you talking about? audigy sucks soooo much, I have tried an audigy in my system and then my old sblive and then both at the same time with a friends machine (same speakers) we both agreed that the sb live sounded MUCH better. Creative has gone down the toilet. I'm getting me a nice revolution 7.1 as soon as I get the extra cash. Sure the audigy has better sounding SPECS but it sounds terrible IMHO. My speakers are logitech z-540s, no they aren't most peoples favorites but I really like the sound that comes from them. They are a beautiful deal if you cant afford some klipsches. God I want a klipsch setup.

Treat your body like a $600 car. God didn't intend it to last so use it. Run it into the ground!
 

shadus

Distinguished
Apr 16, 2003
3
0
18,510
0
I dunno, I didn't notice much diff between audigy plat and live plat, but I did notice a massive difference between both of those and the A2... shrug. There are better but A2 is a mighty fine gaming/mp3 sound card imho.

Shadus
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
M Audio 3
N Audio 11

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS