PDA

View Full Version : Favorite Ogg Vorbis Ripper/Player for Windows



linux4life88
April 2nd, 2009, 02:15 AM
The title pretty much says it all.

Dr Small
April 2nd, 2009, 02:19 AM
Since I only use OGG Vorbis on my system, and my parents run Windows, I force VLC on them :D

swoll1980
April 2nd, 2009, 02:32 AM
Not being a jerk. Why would you want to use ogg?. Like I said no disrespect, just curious.

Dr Small
April 2nd, 2009, 02:37 AM
Not being a jerk. Why would you want to use ogg?. Like I said no disrespect, just curious.
Why wouldn't I want to use ogg?

swoll1980
April 2nd, 2009, 02:42 AM
Why wouldn't I want to use ogg?

Why wouldn't you? I never have, and don't know what advantages I would gain from it's use. That's why I ask.

Dr Small
April 2nd, 2009, 02:46 AM
Why wouldn't you? I never have, and don't know what advantages I would gain from it's use. That's why I ask.
I dunno. I'm not too much of a codec freak and panic over sound quality. But I just have always liked ogg and wma/mp3/wav are Windows formats.

doorknob60
April 2nd, 2009, 02:54 AM
Vlc

linux4life88
April 2nd, 2009, 02:57 AM
I will try to explain why I like ogg. For starters I think 128kbps just doesn't sound right but 192kbps takes up to much space in my opinion. I found that serpentine could rip ogg at 160kbps. This sounds much better than 128kbps but doesn't take up as much room as the 192kbps as MP3 does. It is also nice (actually really really) that it a free codec. Although MP3 is better for you MP3 players. That is why I've also have a post asking people what their favorite MP3 ripper is.

linux4life88
April 2nd, 2009, 02:57 AM
Does VLC have a library function for music???

swoll1980
April 2nd, 2009, 03:00 AM
I will try to explain why I like ogg. For starters I think 128kbps just doesn't sound right but 192kbps takes up to much space in my opinion. I found that serpentine could rip ogg at 160kbps. This sounds much better than 128kbps but doesn't take up as much room as the 192kbps as MP3 does. It is also nice (actually really really) that it a free codec. Although MP3 is better for you MP3 players. That is why I've also have a post asking people what their favorite MP3 ripper is.

Makes sense. Can you convert from an mp3, or would that be to hacky?

linux4life88
April 2nd, 2009, 03:02 AM
Makes sense. Can you convert from an mp3, or would that be to hacky?

Yes but you lose to much sound quality when you convert from one losey music codec to another losey music codec. The quality would be better if you rip once into one codec and then again in another.

pwnst*r
April 2nd, 2009, 04:05 AM
Yes but you lose to much sound quality when you convert from one losey music codec to another losey music codec. The quality would be better if you rip once into one codec and then again in another.

your first sentence is correct re: "lossy", but not the second.

logos34
April 2nd, 2009, 04:56 AM
yeah, try to avoid lossy-to-lossy conversion like the plague.

Reasons to use ogg:

-same quality or better at lower bitrate (=smaller file/save space)
-it's free and open-source. Like linux.
-less noticeable artifacts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vorbis) and low bitrate signal failure compared to mp3 (noise-floor effect, etc.)

(See also the Ogg Vorbis hydrogenaudio page (http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Vorbis)).

and (this is my own opinion, based on a graph I once saw, IIRC) a more even distribution of bits in the midrange frequencies.

Only reason you should use mp3 is, of course, because your media player format support is limited to mp3. Sansa, Cowon, iRiver and even iPods (with Rockbox) all support Ogg Vorbis and Flac.

linux4life88 is right about ogg ~160k (q5) settings--it sounds as good as mp3@192 vbr, but smaller. I've switched to ogg @ q5-6 using the tuned aoTuVb5 version (instead of the default Xiph) and am just amazed at the quality. They're completely transparent. Can't tell them from original. Consequently I've all but stopped archiving in lossless (flac) because what's the point other than to be free to re-encode to a different lossy format later on?