Ogg-Vorbis?

[oneeyedhobbit]

Hey, I've been happily re-encoding my mp3s using EAC and LAME, but wanted to try Ogg Vorbis for comparisn sake. However, all I can find is a DOS file--how does one run and configure this particular encoder?

[Duxxy]

Eac can use it as an external encoder.

http://www.chrismyden.com/nuke/modul...&file=painless

[pkasting]

You may want to look at the Hydrogenaudio forums ( www.hydrogenaudio.org ) for all the info you could ever want about ripping, codecs, etc.

If you're going to try Ogg Vorbis, why not try AAC and MPC as well? (I use MPC.)

[oneeyedhobbit]

That's all well and good, but how do I configure Ogg in EAC?

[blessingx]

Scroll down.

Also.

[Iron_Dreamer]

Ogg is a nice codec, but it is not compatible with most portables, and MPC beats it most all the time, as far as high quality archival lossy compression goes. The only real appeal of it is that it is open-source AFAIK.

[oneeyedhobbit]

Bear in mind that I'm using this with an iPod. I'm not sure what is/isn't compatible, but in hind-site I don't think my Ogg will work, or Muse-Pack. Can AAC be set to variable bit rate to rival the qualities achieved by LAME-encoded mp3s?

[blessingx]

Originally posted by oneeyedhobbit Bear in mind that I'm using this with an iPod. I'm not sure what is/isn't compatible, but in hind-site I don't think my Ogg will work, or Muse-Pack. Can AAC be set to variable bit rate to rival the qualities achieved by LAME-encoded mp3s?

Yeah, your options with the iPod are WAV/AIFF, MP3, and AAC. There's a couple ways to approach AAC.
One is with iTunes/QT. iTunes is "CBR-like" (not a lot of VBR fluctuations in its bit reservoir). Factoring in the ~30% gains you'll get with AAC, 192 will give you 256-like CBR MP3. 224 AAC will give you ~300-like CBR MP3. Both these are above the the corresponding average bitrates of LAMEs presets while having similar file sizes. Your ears can only tell you which you prefer, though.
The other is Neros VBR presets. These are updated monthly and should correspond with LAMEs while being smaller. The most recent update reportedly increased average bitrate for sound quality reasons. Reportedly the bitrate increase will be worked on in the next couple updates, bringing the space savings back. Expect the improvements in AAC to move at a pretty fast pace right now (at least compared to MP3, Ogg, MPC, etc.).
There's also an open source encoder/decoder. See here.

[oneeyedhobbit]

Thanks blessingx, when I have time I'll try out AAC and compare it to mp3/LAME

[Chinchy]

If anyone has the iRiver IMP-550, the latest firmware update supports OGG up to certain bitrate, maybe 192?

[wali]

Originally posted by oneeyedhobbit
I've been happily re-encoding my mp3s

Are you ripping the CDs to mp3 or "re-encoding existing Mp3s"? If it is the later, then it is not such a good idea.

[oneeyedhobbit]

I'm ripping CDs. I know the latter is bad, and it means I'm going to lose a lot of music down the road...

[tigre]

FYI: Here are some encoder comparisons based on publicly performed double blind listening tests - this week there'll start a new test by the way, comparing different AAC encoders at 128kbps bitrate (or corresponding VBR settings).

[pkasting]

Those listening tests are must-views for anyone using 128kbit or lower for their encodings. I note there's not really any "high bitrate" comparisons.

BTW a quick note on reading those graphs: treat the result bar for each codec as an "error bar" representing the possible range of values; that range has a high probability of containing the result of a listening test with any representative sample. In other words, the fact that this group of listeners picked a particular rating for how good a codec is means less than the fact that any particular group of listeners would be likely to pick a value within some specific range. So if one codec's full range does not overlap another's at all, you can have confidence that those two codecs have distinctly different quality. If one codec is higher than another but their bars overlap, you CANNOT confidently say that the one is better than the other. Thus in the test with MPC, for example, MPC has the highest overall rating, but it should actually be viewed as "as good as" AAC and WMA overall due to the overlap in their bars. Note that these "overall" ratings don't mean some codecs won't win in particular tests; for example in that same listening test, there was one sample where WMA was rated very low, possibly indicating a case WMA doesn't (or didn't) handle well. Such cases can be found for many lossy formats.