Ogg Vorbis vs MP3 - TranceAddict Forums

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- Ogg Vorbis vs MP3
Pages (3): « 1 [2] 3 »

Posted by USMC_Greg on Jul-07-2004 13:12:

Posted by cviper on Jul-07-2004 16:05:

OGG has its uses; for instance, OGG is gaining some ground in game-development, mostly thanks to its nice licensing (ut2k4 uses OGG for example).

But, as others have said, there's no reason to convert all your mp3:s to ogg.

Posted by Tranc3 on Jul-07-2004 19:40:

[AV-Cables] I just converted ALL my songs to 192kbps.
[AV-Cables] And the Smashing...LIVE! soundtrack to 320kbps.
[Frozen-Solid] uh....
[Frozen-Solid] converted from what...?
[AV-Cables] 128kbps

Posted by itch on Jul-07-2004 19:41:

quote:
Originally posted by igottaknow
Here's a serious comment to a laughable thread. What's the point of converting from one lossy format to another? Just like convert from gif to jpeg you lose quality even if the later format has better compression. Like someone said OGG provides only a minimal improvement over mp3. I have neither the time nor the inclination to re-encode 3,000 songs for the greater cause. Besides my Car stereo will only play mp3s, do you propose I duplicate my files in two formats? My advice is to layoff the OGG crack and get with the PNG format, it�s sweeping the net.

Why do u keep comparing pics to audio, mp3 to jpg & ogg to png? I mean, stick with the program. And yes, i get YOUR point: not enough time, not enough hardware support, etc., etc.; but did u get my point? ie: shouldn't we do something about it? or should we just deal with the cards we're given.

And another thing, regarding the comment about needing a high-end system to notice that ogg is equal to or even worse than mp3: not true, @ least in my case. I may not have a top-o'-da-line system (it's decent), but i know quality when i hear it. How about this: to anybody interested in true & simple Ogg vs MP3: take a nice dynamic, full ranging track off original CD and compress into 96kbps ogg & mp3. If that's not enough, test ogg at the lowest bitrate; you'll be surprised @ the quality @ those bitrates. If you aren't, then you can just take this as a simple indication of what's better 4 u and that this post is just one fool's opinion & u can just take it or leave it.

Posted by starglider on Jul-08-2004 00:08:

Space saving isn't an issue now that everyone has massive amounts of disk space, so I see no real reason for OGG to catch on. At high bitrates they're not going to sound better than MP3s, because, as mentioned, they are both still lossy formats.

Posted by goodnet on Jul-08-2004 00:24:

igottaknow explained it very well. The idea of converting from one lossy format to another lossy format just to save a few gigs of space is just rediculous from a practical standpoint. You only degrade the audio further by doing that (To me, the idea of lossy-to-lossy format conversion is downright hideous!). It's not even worth doing for the sake of saving trivial amounts of HD space; hard drive space is relatively cheap these days!

If you want more support for OGG - i would suggest writing format requests to the companies which manufacture portable & car stereo devices & try to get them to support the OGG Vorbis in thier players.

Posted by ASOT100 on Jul-08-2004 02:18:

i don't think ogg will catch on, mp3 already has such a large user base, and to get untech-savy ppl to use ogg will be too much work

Posted by montana on Jul-08-2004 09:31:

i went ogg like when in the beginning, but i went back to mp3, as it was same shit. i don't care in 192 in mp3 is the equivealence of 128 in ogg. it's same shit

Posted by igottaknow on Jul-08-2004 15:36:

If this kid was older he'd be complaining that vhs made beta its bitch. The world is an unfair place where the best isn't always the winner *cough microsoft* so cry me a river

Posted by itch on Jul-08-2004 17:54:

quote:
Originally posted by igottaknow
If this kid was older he'd be complaining that vhs made beta its bitch. The world is an unfair place where the best isn't always the winner *cough microsoft* so cry me a river

Good point. Have to agree with you on this one. I guess you've hit the nail on the head that time & that it's case closed, unless anyone has anything else to add?

Posted by USMC_Greg on Jul-08-2004 19:52:

quote:
Originally posted by itch
Good point. Have to agree with you on this one. I guess you've hit the nail on the head that time & that it's case closed, unless anyone has anything else to add?

Don't you realize that he's making fun of you??!?!?!

Posted by igottaknow on Jul-08-2004 23:44:

quote:
Originally posted by USMC_Greg
Don't you realize that he's making fun of you??!?!?!

whoever made that dirty sanchez I wonder if he could post one with mp3 and the other with ogg tattooed on his forehead?

Posted by itch on Jul-09-2004 17:39:

quote:
Originally posted by USMC_Greg
Don't you realize that he's making fun of you??!?!?!

Yes, ever since his first post, but he does make a good point while also (finally) reaching an understanding of my point of view. So why do i have to argue with that?

Posted by USMC_Greg on Jul-09-2004 18:10:

quote:
Originally posted by itch
Yes, ever since his first post, but he does make a good point while also (finally) reaching an understanding of my point of view. So why do i have to argue with that?

ROFLMAO

....

I can't keep up with the intelligence of this thread.

Posted by getfoul on Jul-09-2004 19:17:

quote:
Originally posted by igottaknow
I'm down with OBP
Yeah you know me

OPP

Posted by itch on Jul-09-2004 19:44:

Well what the hell do u want me to say USMC_Greg? That i was wrong; that i should have kept my ogg opinion to myself? I'm apparently not going to get any support on this, so I've decided to give up trying and cut my losses. Or don't u get that?

Posted by websley on Aug-29-2004 13:29:

dbPoweramp Music Converter is a great tool! I think I gonna convert all my songs, but... not in OGG!

Posted by mndeg on Aug-29-2004 14:10:

ipod doesn ot support ogg, therefore I do not use it

too legit... too legit to quit

Posted by websley on Aug-29-2004 14:20:

We use our DVD-player a lot for mp3-CD's. F*ck the guy who's gonna tell me that there will be affordable OGG supported DVD-players!

Posted by saiyAn on Aug-29-2004 17:47:

I dislike Ogg Vorbis simply because it sounds like a pissed off androide with a ray gun that wants to kill me.

Posted by websley on Aug-29-2004 17:56:

And not to mention the fact that OGG-files can't be added to my windows mediaplayer library! Now I have to write the ratings down on notepad

I guess this is starting to be a OGG bashing-thread

But don't get me wrong, I DO know the advantages of small music files on my harddisk. (After all it's only 8 gig on my comp )

Posted by Zeiter on Aug-29-2004 17:59:

Hey guys,

Mp3 is enough quality for my needs, i mean..mp3 are there to give u an easy way to save your collection of cds in your computer and listening to it while chatting, websurfing or doing homework....i have a decent audio system and yes i notice it when i play a mp3..even in 320 kbps over the cd quality but hey, im doing an homework, i wont be concentrating on the song quality when i need to get my shit done for the next day...so mp3 is good

Posted by websley on Aug-29-2004 18:11:

quote:
Originally posted by Zeiter
Hey guys,

Mp3 is enough quality for my needs, i mean..mp3 are there to give u an easy way to save your collection of cds in your computer and listening to it while chatting, websurfing or doing homework....i have a decent audio system and yes i notice it when i play a mp3..even in 320 kbps over the cd quality but hey, im doing an homework, i wont be concentrating on the song quality when i need to get my shit done for the next day...so mp3 is good

Wait a sec... You say you'd even tell the difference between 320 kbps mp3 and CD-quality? That's quite amazing, if not say extremely hard to believe!

Don't talk shit

Posted by kr00t0n on Aug-29-2004 18:13:

To see a fellow capetonian be so rash is saddening to me.
It's a great site, but being aggressive never works well.

as for ogg/mp3.... I'm far too lazy to convert, I'd sooner buy a bigger HDD

Though admittedly, I can see why smaller file sizes is of use, broadband is ludicrously expensive in SA, any saving is worthwhile.

Thank god I am in London

Posted by Zeiter on Aug-29-2004 20:41:

quote:
Originally posted by websley
Wait a sec... You say you'd even tell the difference between 320 kbps mp3 and CD-quality? That's quite amazing, if not say extremely hard to believe!

Don't talk shit

i dont talk shit buddy, i got some nice 3000 bucks sound system..so its easy to see when a file is compressed....

ciao

Pages (3): « 1 [2] 3 »