Mass convert mp3 to ogg format, ~6000 songs to convert Options

[smsmasters]

What's the quickest software to mass convert mp3 files to ogg, whilst still preserving the tags and folder structures?

I also have Adobe Audition, maybe someone can recommend a fast encoder to use with this?

Thanks

[Lashiec]

I would say foobar2000's Converter would be the best solution, if you are aware of the problems inherent to lossy transcoding, that is, your new OGG files are going to sound worse than the original ones (unless the MP3 files are encoded at a insanely high bitrate)

This post has been edited by Lashiec: Dec 5 2006, 17:38

[smsmasters]

Yup, I am aware of that

My aim is to fit ~6000 songs onto my spare iPod Mini 6GB (which I will install rockbox onto).

I have tested OGG at 45kbps with a lowpass filter at ~16khz and it sounds reasonable enough "to me" for my purpose. I'm not aiming for the best sound quality in this situation.

[Lashiec]

Yup, I am aware of that

My aim is to fit ~6000 songs onto my spare iPod Mini 6GB (which I will install rockbox onto).

I have tested OGG at 45kbps with a lowpass filter at ~16khz and it sounds reasonable enough "to me" for my purpose. I'm not aiming for the best sound quality in this situation.

OK, if you're aware, foobar should give no problems, if you know how to configure it. In the main page, there are links to some guides. Apart from that, the only program capable of doing that kind of transcoding is MediaCoder, but I've never used it, so I can't help you if you choose this other option.

[smsmasters]

thanks for the advice!

[ImAlive]

You might want to try HE-AAC at around q .25, which is pretty much okay for on-the-go-listening (don't know if Rockbox can play this, though). Fiddling with the lowpass switches is disrecommended; you should stick with the quality presets.

Foobar is indeed able to do this

[ImAlive]

EDIT: Doublepost, please remove. Didn't get forwarded to the finished post... strange.

This post has been edited by ImAlive: Dec 5 2006, 18:01

[Teknojnky]

Mediamonkey can also mass convert from one type to another.

It should also be able to sync and auto-convert on the fly (if so configured) to your rock box so you don't have to all of them at once.

[smsmasters]

Thanks everyone for the help!

[VEG]

http://vorbis.org.ru/files/autotranscoder_sse.exe

@for /F "delims=" %%S in ('dir /S /A-D /B *.mp3') do @mp3toogg "%%~S" -q0

@echo MP3 to OGG AutoTranscoder v1.4.1 ©15.02.2006, VEG (veg@tut.by)
@lame --decode "%~dpn1.mp3" - | oggenc --quiet %2 -o "%~dpn1.ogg" -
@tag --simple --hidenames -t "ENCODEDBY=AutoTranscoder (MP3 to OGG)" --fromfile "%~dpn1.mp3" "%~dpn1.ogg"
@if EXIST "%~dpn1.ogg" @del "%~dpn1.mp3"
@echo --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This post has been edited by VEG: Dec 5 2006, 20:37

[dv1989]

Does everyone want those ENCODEDBY tags of yours?

[Ingemar]

I'm not sure if I understand why there is a loss in quality.

I am planning to do this as well (convert mp3 to ogg), but I always thought that if you pick an ogg bitrate near the mp3 bitrate the result in qualilty would be identical since the ogg encoder is better (it can loose more bits without affecting quality). I even thought that in theory transcoding an mp3 to ogg at a lower bitrate than the mp3 would still result in identical quality because of the above mentioned reason.

Is the loss in quality (if there is any) merely theoretical or what?

My mp3's vary largely in quality, but most are 160vbr or higher.

[Lear]

You might want to try HE-AAC at around q .25, which is pretty much okay for on-the-go-listening (don't know if Rockbox can play this, though).

While Rockbox technically supports HE-AAC (since it uses FAAD2), it doesn't play it in real-time, so it isn't an option here.

[evereux]

With lossy compression there is ALWAYS some quality loss. The audbility/severity of that loss is dependant upon the bitrate used but is always there. This is something you can't avoid. eg You encode to MP3 and introduce one set of problems, to then transcode to OGG introduces another set of problems and OGG will also try and reproduce the problems incurred by encoding to MP3.

To transcode from MP3 to OGG Vorbis achieving similar bitrates doesn't make any sense whether the audibility of that loss is large, small or non-existant.

[Ingemar]

To transcode from MP3 to OGG Vorbis achieving similar bitrates doesn't make any sense whether the audibility of that loss is large, small or non-existant.

Sure ... from a technical point of view

[evereux]

To transcode from MP3 to OGG Vorbis achieving similar bitrates doesn't make any sense whether the audibility of that loss is large, small or non-existant.

Sure ... from a technical point of view

Technical AND theoretical. There's no point.

[Junon]

I'm not sure if I understand why there is a loss in quality.

I am planning to do this as well (convert mp3 to ogg), but I always thought that if you pick an ogg bitrate near the mp3 bitrate the result in qualilty would be identical since the ogg encoder is better (it can loose more bits without affecting quality). I even thought that in theory transcoding an mp3 to ogg at a lower bitrate than the mp3 would still result in identical quality because of the above mentioned reason.

Is the loss in quality (if there is any) merely theoretical or what?

My mp3's vary largely in quality, but most are 160vbr or higher.

The reason for this behaviour can be found in the fact that a lossy encoder like MP3 doesn't only compress your music, but also irreversibly alters the audio data. Dependant on its psychoacoustic model it removes major parts of the source and leaves no possibility to return the lost data. Now, if you transcode the MP3 file to Vorbis the latter removes even more data from the file based on its own psychoacoustic model and therefore causes an additional loss in quality. That means no matter which bitrate you choose for the Vorbis codec, it will always be of worse quality compared to the MP3 file it was transcoded from. The best possible case is that you aren't able to ABX this quality loss, but it's certainly there.

For this reason, to achieve the best possible quality using the Vorbis codec, you have to encode it from the source as well. Transcoding is only an option if the MP3's are of too high bitrates to fit a flash-based portable player, and you don't wanna rip your CDs over and over. If the latter was the issue, archiving to a lossless codec might help you out, since this would be the last time you had to rip your collection.

Edit: Added the link.

This post has been edited by Junon: Jan 13 2007, 17:57

[Remedial Sound]

http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Transcoding

[yulyo!]

One of the best is Easy Cd-Da Extractor. The bad thing is that is not free.
But it preserve the tags and even the directories.

[Jebus]

One of the best is Easy Cd-Da Extractor. The bad thing is that is not free.
But it preserve the tags and even the directories.

Omni Encoder is easy and free, and will preserve the directory layout (use the "mirror" option).

I'm not sure if I understand why there is a loss in quality.

I am planning to do this as well (convert mp3 to ogg), but I always thought that if you pick an ogg bitrate near the mp3 bitrate the result in qualilty would be identical since the ogg encoder is better (it can loose more bits without affecting quality). I even thought that in theory transcoding an mp3 to ogg at a lower bitrate than the mp3 would still result in identical quality because of the above mentioned reason.

Is the loss in quality (if there is any) merely theoretical or what?

My mp3's vary largely in quality, but most are 160vbr or higher.

Think of a photocopy of a photocopy. Even if the second photocopier you use is better, the image is still going to be no better than the first photocopy.

This post has been edited by Jebus: Jan 14 2007, 00:46

[Ingemar]

Thanks everyone for the responses.

evereux: While I don't want to start the discussion here, there is a moral reason why one would not want to use mp3, but I don't think the loss in quality is worth it so screw morale in this case

[Martin H]

* Deleted *

(Sorry, replied to wrong thread...)

This post has been edited by Martin H: Jan 14 2007, 12:22

[evereux]

Thanks everyone for the responses.

evereux: While I don't want to start the discussion here, there is a moral reason why one would not want to use mp3, but I don't think the loss in quality is worth it so screw morale in this case

Moral reasons? No there aren't.

edit:

I suspect the use of the word moral is being used in the wrong context.

This post has been edited by evereux: Jan 14 2007, 13:48

[Preuss]

Thanks everyone for the responses.

evereux: While I don't want to start the discussion here, there is a moral reason why one would not want to use mp3, but I don't think the loss in quality is worth it so screw morale in this case

I would very much like to know what your mean by moral reason.?

[Firon]

Patent issues?