Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Ogg,Mp3,... on hardware (Read 3599 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Ogg,Mp3,... on hardware

Hello all,

Since I read recently that mp3 is almost at the top of it's abilities, I'm looking out for a new format to encode my cd's ( or a format that looks the most promising in the future )

I'm still wondering about a couple of things :

I really would like my compressed audio files to be playable on hardware players. I know mp3 is widely supported but supposedly lacks quality and ogg is catching up, but will ogg be supported by hardware at some time??

Is lame really that bad?? When I hear you guys talk about it (often against MPC) is seems that lame must sound like "tape" quality but for me it just sounds great. I even have trouble distinguishing 128 kbps from the original!

Just wondering about these things, hope someone can give me som info.
-->xmixahlx<-- learn the truth about audio-compression

Ogg,Mp3,... on hardware

Reply #1 –
If you can't tell 128Kbps from the original then Lame is fine for you. Vorbis has come a long way and will be going places. It is a most interesting anomaly in the field of codecs and compression techniques. Unlike every other similar codec I have found it is completely free of pattent issues and licensing fees. Which should be majorly attractive to anyone looking to produce a digital music player. And it's quality is prety damned close if not almost dead on to MP3 in less bitrate. It is said to even be catching up on MPC!

Ogg,Mp3,... on hardware

Reply #2 –
I think you are not able to make a difference between mp3@128 and cd because nobody has ever showed you where the difference is (or you havn't looked for enough to find yourself)
After you have heard an artefact for the first time, you will most easily hear it in other encoded tracks.

yvan has found a sample which encoders doesn't like at all.
I have put his original sample (re-edited by me to make it shorter so that it easier) and a lame encoded track @ 128 in cbr mode on my web page here:
http://jjlapin.free.fr/codecs
It's in french but i think you will understand.
Download the two files, enqueue them in winamp, and run the test. Do you hear the "added instrument" that does shashashashasha in background on the encoded track ?
Hope this help

Ogg,Mp3,... on hardware

Reply #3 –
If you enjoy your music just fine and can't tell the difference between LAME mp3 at 128 kbps and the original wav file, then consider sticking with it and not training yourself to hear the difference.  There's something to be said for being content and not knowing - or being trained to know - what you are missing.  Like if you've always ridden a heavy bicycle, you won't know how much more responsive a lighter bike is, and will enjoy your heavier bike just fine.  You get the picture.

That said, I have a 20-pound bicycle that just flies, and am interested in seeing ogg advance and become the leader in codec quality, and have been training myself in picking out artifacts.  But I still question my course.
God kills a kitten every time you encode with CBR 320

Ogg,Mp3,... on hardware

Reply #4 –
Quote
Originally posted by timcupery
If you enjoy your music just fine and can't tell the difference between LAME mp3 at 128 kbps and the original wav file, then consider sticking with it and not training yourself to hear the difference.  There's something to be said for being content and not knowing - or being trained to know - what you are missing.  Like if you've always ridden a heavy bicycle, you won't know how much more responsive a lighter bike is, and will enjoy your heavier bike just fine.  You get the picture.

That said, I have a 20-pound bicycle that just flies, and am interested in seeing ogg advance and become the leader in codec quality, and have been training myself in picking out artifacts.  But I still question my course.


Yeah, at some point training yourself to hear defects become an arms race, and quickly also becomes expensive.  I used to be content with the little portable headphones that come with Sony Walkmans.  Now I carry around Sony MDR-180's (which are hardly audiophile quality, but are better than the ones that come with the Walkman) - much less convenient, but I can't listen to the cheap headphones anymore, since they sound like crap.  But a year ago they sounded fine, and now my current headphones, which audiophiles consider pretty crappy themselves, sound fine.  Perhaps someday I'll upgrade to some nice $70 headphones, and then I'll have to carry those around with me everywhere.  Am I really "improving" my audio experience?  Perhaps, perhaps not.

Ogg,Mp3,... on hardware

Reply #5 –
Can we say that someone who didn't ever eat something else that mac donald, who didn't ever listen to something else that britney spears, who didn't know something else that his native city.... didn't he miss something ?
Knowledge must always be looked for, imho.

Ogg,Mp3,... on hardware

Reply #6 –
Delirium, I have to agree with you on the "Arms Race" with headphones.  I upgraded from some cheap Sony MDR-30A headphones (after over 4 years of use) to some Etymotic ER-4Ps and I can't go back!  They Etys take time to learn how to achieve the best placement, but the quality blows away every other pair of headphones that I have tried since! 

Also I used to be a Submarine Sonar Technician, and I am used to picking out tonals.  With the Etys revealing EVERYTHING, I have to reencode my compressed tunes and avoid cheap headphones (except for when I am being too physically active to use the Etys).  Upgrading is too expensive!
Kimberly aka
Baroness Sylvia von Zurich (the only Goldwater Conservative) endorses the Meadow Party's Bill and Opus for the 2004 Presidential election!  A sometimes dead cat and an overweight penguin who looks like a puffin couldn't possibly do any worse than a Shrub.