IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Ogg at quality setting 10 Vs FLAC, Will i really hear a differnce?
dangerous_dom
post Oct 17 2005, 21:19
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 31
Joined: 17-October 05
Member No.: 25171



I don't have endless HDD space, so was thinking of using ogg CD images (with cue) rather than FLAC.

I am going to use a Squeezebox2 with a Cambridge Audio 640a AMP and Mission 701 speakers. I will also be burning some CD's from these images and using Foobar's convert feature to MP3's for my MP3 player.

Please tell me why or why not i should do this?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
damaki
post Oct 17 2005, 21:23
Post #2





Group: Members
Posts: 143
Joined: 13-July 03
From: Paris, France
Member No.: 7740



I cannot really answer your question, but I had the same problem. Now, I use wavpack lossy in the 400 kbps range. wink.gif


--------------------
Stupidity is root of all evil.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Tahnru
post Oct 17 2005, 21:27
Post #3





Group: Members
Posts: 325
Joined: 17-October 05
From: United States
Member No.: 25178



QUOTE (dangerous_dom @ Oct 17 2005, 03:19 PM)
I don't have endless HDD space, so was thinking of using ogg CD images (with cue) rather than FLAC.

I am going to use a Squeezebox2 with a Cambridge Audio 640a AMP and Mission 701 speakers. I will also be burning some CD's from these images and using Foobar's convert feature to MP3's for my MP3 player.

Please tell me why or why not i should do this?
*


You might consider generating FLAC's at the start of your ripping process, then generating OGG and MP3 by batch once you are satisfied with the tags that have been established. From that point, delete the FLAC's to save space. Something like this would be the way I would approach a limited disk space situation. At the end of this process I would have lossy encoded files that did not suffer lossy-to-lossy transcoding artifacts and, for efficiency, I could modify my batches to be as large as possible but fit inside my limited disk space.

Or we could add space, but I am assuming with the above that purchasing more space is out of the question.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Garf
post Oct 17 2005, 21:34
Post #4


Server Admin


Group: Admin
Posts: 4886
Joined: 24-September 01
Member No.: 13



QUOTE (dangerous_dom @ Oct 17 2005, 10:19 PM)
I don't have endless HDD space, so was thinking of using ogg CD images (with cue) rather than FLAC.

I am going to use a Squeezebox2 with a Cambridge Audio 640a AMP and Mission 701 speakers. I will also be burning some CD's from these images and using Foobar's convert feature to MP3's for my MP3 player.

Please tell me why or why not i should do this?
*


Why -q10 if you are going to do this *and* especially if you're short of disk space?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
dangerous_dom
post Oct 17 2005, 21:36
Post #5





Group: Members
Posts: 31
Joined: 17-October 05
Member No.: 25171



QUOTE (Garf @ Oct 17 2005, 08:34 PM)
QUOTE (dangerous_dom @ Oct 17 2005, 10:19 PM)
I don't have endless HDD space, so was thinking of using ogg CD images (with cue) rather than FLAC.

I am going to use a Squeezebox2 with a Cambridge Audio 640a AMP and Mission 701 speakers. I will also be burning some CD's from these images and using Foobar's convert feature to MP3's for my MP3 player.

Please tell me why or why not i should do this?
*


Why -q10 if you are going to do this *and* especially if you're short of disk space?
*



Because it's still about a third the size of FLAC files.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Rotellian
post Oct 17 2005, 21:51
Post #6





Group: Members
Posts: 80
Joined: 29-October 03
Member No.: 9529



I would rip what i can now to flac and add more hard disk space when i can. Seems more sensible to have it there so you dont have to re-rip in the future.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Involarius
post Oct 17 2005, 22:28
Post #7





Group: Members
Posts: 32
Joined: 8-October 05
Member No.: 24986



My ears (normal ones, in their twenties) with my headphones (K-55) find -q 6 transparent. I keep FLAC archives for the same reason I keep PNG archives of the output of my digital camera: perfectionism, hating the very fact that my original data has been tampered with.

Vorbis -q 10 gives you a nominal bit rate of 500 kbit/s, scratching the lower regions of what you get with FLAC. Effectively, this means that your file savings over FLAC aren't very large.


--------------------
FLAC – all your bit are belong to you
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
bubka
post Oct 17 2005, 23:18
Post #8





Group: Members
Posts: 239
Joined: 21-July 02
Member No.: 2692



are really do not see the benefit of using that high of bit rate when q6 is transparent for almost everyone. If you are going to use a lossy because of space, then don't go with overkill on q10 if you cannot even tell the difference.


--------------------
Chaintech AV-710
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
HbG
post Oct 18 2005, 02:04
Post #9





Group: Members
Posts: 289
Joined: 12-May 03
From: The Hague
Member No.: 6555



I agree, there's not much of a point in using lossy for such high bitrates. One thing you could do is rip to both Vorbis -q5 AND mp3, together they should still take less space than -q10 and it removes the need of transcoding to your player. But ripping to a lossless format and using that for transcoding as you like is very highly recommended, even if you don't have enough space for all your cd's right now.


--------------------
Veni Vidi Vorbis.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
shadowking
post Oct 18 2005, 02:40
Post #10





Group: Members
Posts: 1527
Joined: 31-January 04
Member No.: 11664



Hmm.. 500 vs the typical 800k is around 40% difference. Come on that is a huge difference.


--------------------
Wavpack -b450s0.7
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ilikedirtthe2nd
post Oct 18 2005, 11:19
Post #11





Group: Members
Posts: 470
Joined: 26-October 01
From: Germany
Member No.: 352



Q10 is nonsense in my opinion. Bitrate is much higher that say Q6 but still doesn't have the advantages of lossless encoding. Go either for lossless or lossy at sane bitrates...

Wavpack lossy might be a good compromise at these "in between" bitrates.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 2nd October 2014 - 01:21