MP3 to OGG Vorbis

[Acksaw]

Anyone know of a good free program for converting MP3's to OGG?
And BTW what are the differences between MP3 and OGG Vorbis?

[Rob1n]

There's no real reason to convert from mp3 to ogg (and plenty of reasons not to).

Many people find ogg vorbis sounds better at equivalent bitrates to mp3 (or sounds the same at smaller sizes), but this relies on you encoding from the original source to ogg. In going from mp3 to ogg you'll get quality (probably far) worse than the mp3.

[Prosperus]

What about ogg to mp3? I know it's never good to go from one lossy to another lossy but suppose you were to make a q5 or 6 ogg into a 160 kbps mp3. Would it be reasonably listenable? I ask because I have some of my favorite cds encoded in ogg for home listening, but in terms of using my iriver at work, I'd like to have them in mp3 so that I can get more battery time. I'd rip them all to mp3 directly, but my cds are all over the place and spread between my place and my folk's place.

[sabaisabai]

I think the incompatibility comes from the way that different formats reduce the file size. Audio is largely compressed by removing the sounds that are hidden to the human ear by other sounds in the recording. Different audio compressions are based on different models of what is audible and inaudible. Let's say that MP3 decides to remove 50% of frequencies, leaving 50% of frequencies that make up 95% of the audible song. On first guess, you might say that re-encoding into OGG will reduce that quality again by 95%, to roughly 90% of the original. However, much of the 50% of the frequencies found in the original file that OGG would need to keep may have already been removed by the MP3 encoding, assuming that the audio models are different.

I'm struggling to explain something I'm not sure about here, so anybody with a better explanation, please chip in!

[Waysid]

I often convert 192kpbs WMA files into Q5 ogg vorbis files and I don't really have a problem with the quality at all. Especially since its just rock tunes that I am converting, maybe the quality loss would be more noticable on classical music or something like that? I completely understand that going from one lossy codec to another is going to degrade the quality, but I still believe if you use pretty decent quality to begin with the degradation isn't going to be that noticeable. just my 2 cents.

ps. if you are wondering why I am converting from WMA to OGG its to get DRM files onto my player. I use JetAudio 5 for the conversion. Works really well and fast.

[sabaisabai]

I too have converted from WMA to OGG, for the same reasons. I can hear that the OGGs don't sound quite as good, which is a pity since I paid for the songs from my favourite artist and won't be able to get better copies since they're not available on CD. My XP installation has been deleted along with the DRM licenses and any way to play those DRM files.

[Acksaw]

Ok thansk for the quick and helpful replies i think i will just stick to MP3's sounds like Ogg runs your battery out faster!

[Exo]

Originally Posted by sabaisabai

I too have converted from WMA to OGG, for the same reasons. I can hear that the OGGs don't sound quite as good, which is a pity since I paid for the songs from my favourite artist and won't be able to get better copies since they're not available on CD. My XP installation has been deleted along with the DRM licenses and any way to play those DRM files.

Urm, yeah ... of course the Ogg would not sound as good as the WMA, that's called transcoding.
Converting one format to another will always end up with the file not sounding as good.

Why don't you just download a WMA DRM stripper to remove the DRM licenses ?
I personally refuse to buy anything with DRM, which is why allofmp3.com is so good.

As for Ogg using more battery, that is true but it's not too bad - a good trade off for much smaller file sizes and better quality at lower rates etc
But don't bother unless you're making Ogg's from the source (i.e. WAV files etc)

[sabaisabai]

We were talking about transcoding earlier in the thread.

Do you still need the DRM licenses to convert the DRM WMA players to non-DRM? All I have is the WMA files now.

[Waysid]

oops sorry posted twice

[Waysid]

I haven't seen or heard of any recent WMA DRM strippers? There was one a while back unf**k or something lihe that but it no longer works. Another one was "freeme" but once again no longer works.

[TedJ]

Originally Posted by sabaisabai

I think the incompatibility comes from the way that different formats reduce the file size. Audio is largely compressed by removing the sounds that are hidden to the human ear by other sounds in the recording. Different audio compressions are based on different models of what is audible and inaudible. Let's say that MP3 decides to remove 50% of frequencies, leaving 50% of frequencies that make up 95% of the audible song. On first guess, you might say that re-encoding into OGG will reduce that quality again by 95%, to roughly 90% of the original. However, much of the 50% of the frequencies found in the original file that OGG would need to keep may have already been removed by the MP3 encoding, assuming that the audio models are different.

I'm struggling to explain something I'm not sure about here, so anybody with a better explanation, please chip in!

You're VERY close to the mark there sabaisai. The ideal transcoding situation is to go from a high bitrate to a low bitrate using an encoder with an identical psycho-acoustic model as was used on the original file. This almost never happens, which is why transcoding is generally frowned against.

Of course, if you don't have the original sources to hand, then transcoding isn't going to send you straight to hell.

[Exo]

Originally Posted by Waysid

I haven't seen or heard of any recent WMA DRM strippers? There was one a while back unf**k or something lihe that but it no longer works. Another one was "freeme" but once again no longer works.

A 30 second search on Google of this forum will reveal more

Besides, a very simple method of DRM stripping is to make an Audio CD from the WMA's, then re-ripping with a decent ripper (like Audiograbber for instance) will rip DRM free.

I personally have not done, I've NEVER owned a DRM file, NEVER will and don't see the point when most software doesn't deal with DRM.

[snowcrash]

Originally Posted by TedJ

You're VERY close to the mark there sabaisai. The ideal transcoding situation is to go from a high bitrate to a low bitrate using an encoder with an identical psycho-acoustic model as was used on the original file. This almost never happens, which is why transcoding is generally frowned against.

Hmm, I wondered about this.
So if you were to rip an original at 320k mp3, and transcode/re-encode it again at 192k mp3 with the same encoder, would the quality of the final 192k mp3 file be the as if same you ripped the original straight to 192 in the first place?
(Thinking of a scenario where you would want to fit more tunes on your dap, but have bigger files on your pc. Of course in this situation best to rip original files to a lossless format if u have room on your pc)

sc

[TedJ]

Originally Posted by snowcrash

Hmm, I wondered about this.
So if you were to rip an original at 320k mp3, and transcode/re-encode it again at 192k mp3 with the same encoder, would the quality of the final 192k mp3 file be the as if same you ripped the original straight to 192 in the first place?
(Thinking of a scenario where you would want to fit more tunes on your dap, but have bigger files on your pc. Of course in this situation best to rip original files to a lossless format if u have room on your pc)

sc

Not really. It would be better than using another encoder with a differing psycho-acoustic model but still not as good as encoding from source.

Ogg Vorbis apparently has plans for bit-rate peeling, which would be ideal for the purpose you mention, Snowcrash.

UPDATE: Just found this over at Hydrogen Audio: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/...hp/t26227.html

[snowcrash]

thanx for the info about ogg Tedj, esp cos I use it rip my cds.
Wonder who invents terms like 'bit-rate peeling'!

sc

[TedJ]

The boffins over at www.xiph.org do I guess, since I doubt they can afford a marketing department.