|
Ogg Vorbis vs MP3 (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| igottaknow |
| quote: | Originally posted by itch
All I'm saying is that it's inevitable that things change, so why not speed up the process while also supporting leading programs (and yes, ogg is definitely better than MP3; don't believe me? try it out for yourself). Sure some people think that we need a bigger phenomenon to change our minds on this one, but we aren't talking about "a few kb's". I saved over 2GB (~6 -> ~4GB); u call that "a few kb's"? Not to mention that I hear absolutely no difference in quality (again, if u think I don't no what I'm talking about, see it for yourself). |
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. ;) |
|
|
| USMC_Greg |
| 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. ;) |
Thank you! |
|
|
| cviper |
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. |
|
|
| Tranc3 |
[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 |
|
|
| itch |
| 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. |
|
|
| starglider |
| 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. |
|
|
| goodnet |
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. |
|
|
| ASOT100 |
| 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 |
|
|
| montana |
| i went ogg like when in the beginning, but i went back to mp3, as it was same . i don't care in 192 in mp3 is the equivealence of 128 in ogg. it's same |
|
|
| 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  |
|
|
| itch |
| 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? |
|
|
| USMC_Greg |
| 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??!?!?! |
|
|
|
|
