If you think you’ll get higher quality songs by converting mp3 to Ogg you’re quite stupid. :]
First of all mp3 compresses the file, then you’ll compress it even more by converting it to Ogg. (since mp3 and Ogg uses two different algorithms it’ll be even worse.)
Instead of compressing your cd-music to mp3, make them Ogg directly, then the sound will be superior any mp3 in both quality and filesize.
Don’t use lossless audio format, that’s just waste of space.
EDIT: From the Ogg Vorbis FAQ
Can I convert my MP3 collection to the Ogg Vorbis format?
You can convert any audio format to Ogg Vorbis. However, converting from one lossy format, like MP3, to another lossy format, like Vorbis, is generally a bad idea. Both MP3 and Vorbis encoders achieve high compression ratios by throwing away parts of the audio waveform that you probably won’t hear. However, the MP3 and Vorbis codecs are very different, so they each will throw away different parts of the audio, although there certainly is some overlap. Converting a MP3 to Vorbis involves decoding the MP3 file back to an uncompressed format, like WAV, and recompressing it using the Ogg Vorbis encoder. The decoded MP3 will be missing the parts of the original audio that the MP3 encoder chose to discard. The Ogg Vorbis encoder will then discard other audio components when it compresses the data. At best, the result will be an Ogg file that sounds the same as your original MP3, but it is most likely that the resulting file will sound worse than your original MP3. In no case will you get a file that sounds better than the original MP3.
Since many music players can play both MP3 and Ogg files, there is no reason that you should have to switch all of your files to one format or the other. If you like Ogg Vorbis, then we would encourage you to use it when you encode from original, lossless audio sources (like CDs). When encoding from originals, you will find that you can make Ogg files that are smaller or of better quality (or both) than your MP3s.
eric are you a complete dingbat. read my fu-cking post
well i started to re-encode them from the cd and then i decided to compare the cd quality to the ogg vorbis file.
you see i own all my music in CD format and i decided that 256Kbps MP3’s are not my cup of tea, i had orriginally wanted to do OGG but couldn’t find any good windows software to encode them well with CDDB recognition.
well i found some the other day and decidedd to re-encode my cd’s to OGG. and delete my MP3 collection of the same songs.
p.s. LOSELESS AUDIO is worth it. it is absolutly fantastic.
mp3 and Ogg are both lossey formats no matter how high they are encoded in a blind comparison test which i did i could tell the difference SO QUICK it wasn’t funny.
700Kbps is all it takes to have LOSELESS audio. and with a 120Gb HDD then i have plenty of room.
also i have a MD player which i need to connect to my computer to create MD’s with so using the fibre optic connectionto my computer i would rather be encoding ATRAC on my MD player from LOSELESS AUDIO. than encoding ATRAC from my MP# or OGG files (double encoding as you dscribed it.
anyway thats my bit.
p.s. FLAC is part of the Ogg development stream as i understand it. so they will put out a loseless ogg format soon that uses FLAC as a part of it.
anyway i am not a complete idiot and a whole cd to encode to flac takes 4 mins!!!
i actually use 2 and 3 pain in my ass. i can control 2 with my buddylist so big plus there, one less window around. but when it comes to playing games for some reason 2 just starts to lag and then come to a halt after a couple mins. 3 seems to solve this problem.
I don’t use Winamp, Musicmatch Jukebox is just good for me. But, if I did use (as I did some time ago) winamp, I’d use 2., because 3. is freakishly slow on my computer, I don’t know why.
I’ve tried both versions of Winamp, and I personally think that 2.** is much better. Both were good, but I think 2.** loads quicker, uses up less resources, and it has better support for visualizations (I strongly suggest Milkdrop!).
I use winamp 3 on my new computer, mostly because I can. Version 2 for the old one though, definitely. I like the media library, because I almost always want to listen to a particular artist and it sorts them like that automatically.
I have a decently fast computer (AMD Athlon XP 1800+ @ 1.54 GHz 512 MB RAM) and Winamp 3 still ran slow. And it was literally the third or fouth thing I ever installed on the machine the day I put it together. I used it for about a month but after it kept crashing for no good reason I just said, “You know what…if it ain’t broke don’t make it act stupid and piss you off.” and went back to 2.**
I know this sounds pretty bad, but I use good old standard Windows Media Player. Version 9 for XP is quite good and I like it! I know some of you guys here are severely anti-Microsoft but it works for me. 8)
But with my older computer I used Winamp and I found that both 2 and 3 are pretty good!
And with digital audio compression/conversion, nothing can really beat the CD can it! Maybe one day when a new standard comes out like CD-Advanced or whatever it is, audio will ascend to better quality and with that so can standards like MP3, Ogg Vorbis etc. Tell you the truth though, I can’t really tell the difference.
Oh yeah, I use Media Player 9 for streaming things. Winamp has some sort of issue with streaming mp3s, I did a lot of searching on their forum but never really figured it out… anyway…
well you may find winamp 3 is slow if you have Antialising turned on for the edges.
it quite clearly says this in the preferences.
the thing is i have a 2.4 Ghz machine and the average CPU uasage is only 2% with winamp 3 going and its decoding FLAC files which are harder to decode than MP3’s
so i don’t really buy that.
also Winamp 2 uses the exact same CPU power so really i don’t see why your computer is slow.
some ofthe skins have been reported to use 30% + CPU power (some even 100%)
its a problem with the skin, and read this staement from Winamp.
Desktop Alpha smooths the edges of graphically intensive skins, this requires high-end hardware and may cause CPU usage to dramatically increase.
so that may be your problem.
i personally cannot agree that winamp 3 uses more CPU power, i know an earlier version of it did, but perhaps that bug was fixed.
Hmm, I did not notice that, thanks for pointing it out. I quess I’ll have to give it another try then… though I’m quite in love with MusicMatch Jukebox…
pain in my ass. i can control 2 with my buddylist so big plus there, one less window around. but when it comes to playing games for some reason 2 just starts to lag and then come to a halt after a couple mins. 3 seems to solve this problem.
