I have 7gb of mp3, all above 192kbps.....i want to convert them to OGG 144kbps

Im using Easy cd creator 6 audio central, but is being long a lot....about 20 minutes to convert a entire cd.....this is normal ???

I already tried Sound forge 6, and the conversion also delay a lot

The conversion for OGG format is slow naturally, or i can use another better program to speed up this process ???

My system is:

P4 2.56ghz, 512mb ddr400, Sound blaster Audigy

Thanks for any help

listen to this:

http://home.t-online.de/home/frank-bicking/heehee.ogg © Emmett Plant

and rethink about transcoding . [transcoding = death]

or can you give me a good reason why you want to do that?

EDIT: thanks Frank for hosting that file

I noticed that OGG at 144kbps has more quality and smaller size than my mp3.

Is that wrong ??

Ok, just in case....which is the best program to convert a mp3 to OGG format ???

And to make ogg from CD ??


Thanks for any explanation

A 144 Ogg might have higher quality than a 192 mp3, but not if it was created from the mp3 - that would mean it was accurately creating detail that wasn't in the mp3 to begin with, which is unlikely!

Cheers, Paul

CDex is good for CD to OGG

That depends on what operating system you use.
On Linux, I use grip, which is a front end using cdparanoia to rip and oggenc to
encode. This is included in at least a few linux distributions.

On WindowsXP I use dbPoweramp music converter (www.dbpoweramp.com

This can also convert mp3 to ogg if you have to, but you have been warned
about the quality loss inherent in converting between 2 lossy formats.

Hi,

another good programm to convert music files is "ace-high mp3 wav wma ogg converter". but you can only download a trial version, otherwise you have to pay for it...

Regards Hannes

First of all transcoding = BAD. Keep your mp3s the way they are, they will only sound worse as Oggs. I think as far as going CD - Ogg. Most people on this site would agree that (under Windows) EAC is the best ripping program, and the best Ogg encoder for a n00b is probably oggdropXPd GT3b1 (I suggest either -q5 or -q6).
However MusePack is commonly seen as being better than Ogg in terms of quality, here is the encoder and a frontend.

edit: and here are some detailed instructions for encoding in Musepack format.

I hope you find this useful.

DON'T TRANSCODE

But is possible obtain more quality writing the mp3 on a audio cd and rip this cd in ogg format with EAC????????

No.

ROTFL.... ya gotta give Lyvyoo credit though for using the search function to dig this up. hahaha.

For posterity, since this thread is from 2003: if you're looking for a faster way to encode to ogg, check out lancer, a speed optimized build.

dBpowerAMP
install the regular ogg vorbis plugin and the aoTuV b4 plugin
replace that version of aoTuV with the latest lancer

sit back, and watch it go

Transcode means you will not get ogg file that better than your mp3.

Yes, but if you want to hear the new ogg files on a mobile phone i think is a good ideea! The ogg files is small and on Nokia 6680 you don't feel a big diference, compare with the original mp3!

Ogg sounds good if the source is original or lossless. If original is MP3, it all depends on the song itself. Trust me, I've been there. Sometimes it works (i.e. transcoding to Vorbis did not cause audible degradation), sometimes it doesn't work.

The tool I use is WinLame. MediaCoder and dBPowerAmp and foobar2000 can also do the trick. Take your poison

Hmm... there's a good analogy... I read it somewhere, but I forgot where. It goes like this:

When you encode lossily (e.g. with MP3), consider it like cutting the ends of a bread loaf, then stomping on the bread so it becomes smaller. But part of the bread is gone.

When you transcode into something else (e.g. to Vorbis), you puff up the bread, cut off a different part of the bread, and then stomp on it again. The bread is smaller, but some part has been irretrievably lost during first encode.

I think this analogy comes from a HA-member... please tell me who, and I'll put in the proper credit.

So...

1. Compression basically "rounds" frequency components that are masked by others
2. When using near-transparent compression (let's say Ogg Q7 for example), the noise added instead of the original frequencies should be well below the hearing threshold, right? Else we would be able to ABX is easily.
3. Recompressing this near transparent source again (transcoding to MP3 for example) shouldn't be looking at the introduced noise, since it should be below the threshold set in the psychoacoustic model??

So why is transcoding bad? The way I look at it is

* It shouldn't be bad when using transparent or near-transparent encodings
* When recompressing at a certain bitrate, quality will surely be less than when the source was PCM
* When in "overkill" (choose 2 compressors & bitrates over your ABXable threshold) it should be very difficult to hear?

Please explain me why my way of thinking is bad, as most ppl here surely have more experience with compression than I have.

Or more to the point, have there been ABX tests from high-bitrate oggs to high-bitrate mp3's (or reverse)

I'd like to do some myself (checked out ABX in foobar) but my computer sound system doesn't nearly have the resolution or noise-free environment my main system has.

Reason I'm asking all this?

The infamous allofmp3.com site - lately they offer compressed audio *but* from the PCM source (only latest recordings) - I tend to buy my tracks in Ogg Q7 (should be *way* above my transparancy threshold, and when playing with extreme low bitrates, the obvious compression is much more pleasing to the ear than the metallic sounding MP3's at the extreme low bitrates) - Now, for my car audio I'd love to transcode these to MP3's.

Furthermore, older allofmp3.com tracks are freeform 384kb MP3 tracks - which you can't DL directly < wrong!

PS. Seems I was wrong! - in Allofmp3.com you can choose "expert mode", and looking at the MP3's it is indicated "384kb MP3 - original encoding"

Transcoding removes even further information from the audio and can also introduce more noticable artifacts.

Everytime you encode lossily, you throw out some details. When it is decoded, the details is filled in approximately, which means that the decoded result is never identical to the original source.

Re-encoding, even to the same codec, will throw out some details, again. But since the wave is now different, it is extremely likely that whatever is thrown out the second time will not be the same as what is thrown out the first time.

Sometimes re-encoding the approximate reconstructed wave to a different codec does not degrade it too much. Guruboolez did an MP3 transcoding test once upon a time. Can someone post the link for me?

But still, there's bound to be more stuff thrown out the second time. Keep transcoding, and you'll end up with a track where virtually all original nuances have been thrown out, and you end up with a very approximated wave that somehow resembles the original in some way...

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....topic=32440&hl=

The posted test is also very nice to see how good the original codec was - OGG > MP3 had a very good result, meaning that an OGG wave must approximate the original wave very much, and not only perception based but also mathematically.

Maybe it's because the 2 codecs are very different in their inner workings to start with!

I only need OGG > MP3 to playback my bought music in the MP3 car player - high noise levels will mask out a lot, so as long as there are no obvious introduced artifacts I'm happy - slightly "different sounding" doesn't matter.

Then something else - we're always decoding to wav and re-encoding here - but how about something like in video transcoding? Changing MP3 bitrates the way that DVDshrink and such work? I believe it's called requantization? - searched a bit - it's transcoding in the compressed domain, by "droppping (requantizing) DCT coefficients. Don't know if anything like this is present in MP3.

Thanks for that link!

PS. Bitrate peeling would be cool if it ever got announced.

Do you have something like this in mind?

That's some nice stuff!! cheers! - however I'd like to see MP3 (or other format) transcoders that work in the compressed domain only (a la MPEG2 video transcoders)

HINT: Highlight his post. Hidden lines, ooo.

This is a violation of TOS#14, "Do not reply to spam posts/topics."

Please quit it.

EDIT: Mods, feel free to remove this post.