| Best P2P to find OGG music. So I'd like to start getting as much of my current mp3 library into ogg format without converting. Are certain p2p programs better for finding ogg music than others? |
|
| No. Most music is in mp3. What you can do is get flac, or high bitrate mp3 and covert them yourself.
Theres plenty of flac on bittorrent. |
|
|
|
4 edits | reply to XNemesis
OGG may be great and completely open, but its support is gone.
The "community" has already picked up AAC, just like x264 has with video. Don't expect to find a lot of OGG anywhere.
To be honest, unless your MP3's are lower than 128 (192 if you have good ears ) what is the point? To be honest I can't tell the difference between 64 kbs AAC and uncompressed CD. |
|
 shearerNorthern LightsPremium
join:2002-06-18
Asia | said by DataRiker:To be honest I can't tell the difference between 64 kbs AAC and uncompressed CD. 64 kbps? Wow AAC is that good huh...  |
|
 RyanPremium
join:2001-03-03
Quincy, MA | reply to DataRiker
said by DataRiker:OGG may be great and completely open, but its support is gone. The "community" has already picked up AAC, just like x264 has with video. Don't expect to find a lot of OGG anywhere. To be honest, unless your MP3's are lower than 128 (192 if you have good ears ) what is the point? To be honest I can't tell the difference between 64 kbs AAC and uncompressed CD. Seriously? I hate anything lower then 192 (192 vbr average is ok) 128 CBR or lower just sounds like crap even on low quality sound systems. You can just hear the compression. |
|
4 edits | You must be using a bad encoder or bad source material. I would bet 100 dollars you can't tell the difference between a CD - 192 kbit/s MP3 - 64 bit AAC-HEv2 in a double blind study.
Very few people can reliably guess 2 pass , highest quality 128 vbr MP3 from CD material. 192 and its just a guessing game. |
|
| Hard drive space is cheap. Good headphones are not. By compressing music you have it backwards. -my opinion |
|
4 edits | Your opinion is a little strange since this is a file sharing forum.
Compression is a good thing for sharing. |
|
| Why is it strange? |
|
4 edits | said by c1590:Why is it strange? Hard drives being cheap has nothing to do with file sharing, you have completely missed the point.
x264 and AAC/OGG are basically made for internet transfers. We can effectively trade CPU power for bandwidth. |
|
| Well I figured it was off-topic discussion after you and I directly answered the OP's question. Plus all people ever talk about in the audio/video chat is stuff about hdtvs.
To elaborate further on my point, and i've seen it in lots of other forums, is people will spend days arguing back and forth about which format is the best only to find out they listen to music with crappy $50 logitech speakers. In terms of noticeable difference, in almost every situation wouldn't it be more important to discuss the best way to listen rather then the best file format?
Times have changed and we're not using 40gb maxtors and 768kbps dsl anymore. So why not eliminate the headache (and variable) of comparing compression codecs by going completely lossless? |
|
4 edits | the days of easy lossless compression left with .wav files. Material now is released on mpeg4 standards which do not compress at all with lossless techniques.
320K MP3 is completely transparent to CD standard WAV even in signal analysis done by computers. In other words, the signal is exactly replicated, only encoded differently so it technically can't be called "lossless" even though in reality it is.
Knowing this I don't know why anybody would ever recommend FLAC. (quite frankly, this is why flac is not very popular ) |
|
| Say wha? FLAC is the defacto lossless standard these days. |
|
4 edits |
But wav files are no longer used ( for internet distribution), thus neither is flac
Flac can't compress any thing based on mpeg4, your about 5 years behind the times.
|
|
| reply to XNemesis
Go with the guy supporting lossless. Compressed is more versatile than lossy (mp3) is. You can make high quality mp3s from lossless, but you can't do the opposite. OGG is mostly forgotten.
You wouldn't want lossless or 320kbps mp3 on your cell phone, but a big hard drive can hold many of either. |
|
4 edits | This is false.
At 320K you reach full transparency for CD audio, which means trans coding is a non-issue.
Transparency means the wave function is FULLY and ACCURATELY represented within the standard of the original CD.
E.G. - every bit as good a FLAC at half the size.
This is why 320K is the usual limit on MP3, because it can't get anymore accurate than the transparency level. (technically it could, but its becoming a philosophical argument at this point )
** this assumes a relatively "new" encoder, with 2 pass ability |
|
 nightshade74Yet another genxerPremium
join:2004-11-06
Prattville, AL
 ·Charter
| »wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php···iving.22
Space is cheap.
Bandwidth is fast.
FLACs are easy enough to find on Archive.org, Torrents
or, NZBs.
FLAC is great for archiving with zero risk of an artifact.
MP3s are good enough for virtually every other use.
|
|
| reply to DataRiker
said by DataRiker:This is false. At 320K you reach full transparency for CD audio, which means trans coding is a non-issue. Transparency means the wave function is FULLY and ACCURATELY represented within the standard of the original CD. E.G. - every bit as good a FLAC at half the size. This is why 320K is the usual limit on MP3, because it can't get anymore accurate than the transparency level. (technically it could, but its becoming a philosophical argument at this point ) ** this assumes a relatively "new" encoder, with 2 pass ability What is false, the fact that you can not return what mp3 encoding removes? You can't store what lossy codecs do not include in the finished product, so there is no way to restore mp3 to the same state as the original.
Lossless is like storing the entire cd in a smaller space, while mp3 is storing only what you heard.
It's like the bird about to shit on your windshield. He's been within your field of vision for half a minute, but despite your failure to percieve the threat, you will clean up after what you did not see. |
|
4 edits | I think most of this disinformation is due to the old encoders that had real defects, like pops and hissing.
A new encoder at 320K is within .1% tolerance of a standard CD. That is 99.9% accurate at half the size.
It just makes FLAC seem kind of pointless. All the best release groups use AAC now anyway, making it even more irrelevant.
Besides all of this, I used to see smaller file sizes with 7-zip and MS Lossless codec over FLAC. |
|
nightshade74Yet another genxerPremium
join:2004-11-06
Prattville, AL Reviews:
·Charter
| said by DataRiker:A new encoder at 320K is within .1% tolerance of a standard CD. That is 99.9% accurate at half the size. It just makes FLAC seem kind of pointless. FLAC most certainly has it's niche. For archiving
data you want a lossless format. For example
when I ripped my CD collection I just want it
to work. I dont want to wonder if the .1% tolerance
foo-bared something.
Even 100 CDs @ 65 Minutes each a .1% error rate is
6.5 minutes of artifacts. Am I likely to notice?
Probably not... but I'd rather choose a lossless
format and not take a .1% chance.
Diskspace is cheap
Bandwidth is fast |
|
