Ogg Vorbis 500 Kbps vs lossless
Reply #13 – 2005-01-11 00:31:01
1) Online download. Your choices MP3 or Ogg. I choose Ogg at -q 10 because based on common sense I expect that I get something that is closer to the original then MP3 at 320 kbs CBR. So I can achive that and transcode down to -q 6 or even -q 5 for my hifi needs now or to some other format with probably unnoticable artifact if you are sort of space in your PC. Test it. The point is that I cannot predict the future and I think -q 10 is more transcodable than -q 6 especially if your target is -q 6 kinda rate. Why not use -q 6 and not transcode if you plan to use -q 6?2) If you are fed up that modern music is hardly go below 1000 kbs in lossless. I know because 90% of my music (if not more) is in FLAC and even the other lossless are just marginally better based on some lossless comparisons I cannot recall at the moment. So you might experiment with the transodability of Ogg -q 10 and if it is successful you archive your CD-s with -q 10. I think you stand a good chance with this strategy. Fair enough, but personally I would prefer either using twice as much space and recieving the certainty of lossless or using less then have as much space and knowing that the files will still sound really good.1) I think I have the right to muse on these things whenever I want. Especially because these little ideas may sound useful for some and they may want to experiment with them and we may find some quantitative results in this regard from which we all benefit. It may be thought provoking and adds value to this forum. Fine but you are still expected to test these "little ideas" before posting. HA.org wouldn't be very authoritative if half the threads contained "little ideas" like this and most of them turned out to be wrong.2) I clearly stated that I have no proof only expectations based on common sense. I did not violate TOS. I did not recommend anything and I certainly this not present these ideas as FACTs and I stressed that several times. Please read it again. You will find that I did not edit that post (after you) so rest assured what you referred to is what is there now. Perhaps not, however one does get the impression that you are recommending the use of -q 10, if you aren't then you should think about rephrasing your stance on it. If you are then this does border on a TOS violation.3) You DID violate TOS by saying that my ideas are "invalid" because you did not provide proof that supported that they are "invalid". No ABX nothing. You made a claim. Canar said that your claim was invalid, which means that your claim cannot be seen as being authoritative. Invalid doesn't mean the same thing as wrong. Thus Canar certainly didn't violate TOS #8, he didn't even make a claim about subjective audio quality. You did, Triza, thus the burden of proof is on you.