|
|
 |
MajandraFan |
+ |
Tuesday, June 15, 2004 at 12:29 AM I have an idea, why the fuck don't you guys encode them as oggs?
Example: I have an interview of Sarah Silverman on Conan. It is audio only.
The mp3 is 5.6mb. The ogg (in EXACTLY the same quality) is 0.4mb.
Oggs are better than mp3 with music several fold, but with speech the difference is even more ridiculous. Mp3s are 1992 technology.
Just a thought.
Cuz the files could be ten or twenty mb without reducing from broadcast sound quality!!
Fuck.
Okay cool. —MajandraFan |
|
|
|
|
NJC |
+ |
Tuesday, June 15, 2004 at 5:00 AM HEY ASS I have an idea, why don't you get an attitude adjustment? Just cause you are new here (unless you are just a new name) doesn't mean you should be douchebag. If what you say is true, and I hardly believe that ogg has 14x more compression with ZERO loss of quality, post some details and maybe we can actually encode them differently. How about posting a link to a ogg codec/dll that YOU suggest?
-or-
How about you just shut the F up and record your own damn shows! —NJC |
|
|
|
|
salemthepocketfox |
+ |
Tuesday, June 15, 2004 at 5:59 AM OGG's aren't incredibly univeral though, MP3 Pro didn't even take off and people get confused when you mention it to them, and if you do, wait for all the "what player do I need to play an OGG"? topics... —salemthepocketfox |
|
|
|
|
Proc |
+ |
Tuesday, June 15, 2004 at 8:29 AM It is seriously so poorly supported by popular media players that it would be more trouble than it's worth. But just out of curiosity I would also like more info on how you can reduce a VBR MP3 file 14x with OGG. —Proc |
|
|
|
|
sky1 |
+ |
Tuesday, June 15, 2004 at 9:07 AM what is the deal with this --> http://64.29.16.135/bg.gif and why did you post it on the background? —sky1 |
|
|
|
|
puck71 |
+ |
Tuesday, June 15, 2004 at 9:08 AM Mostly we do MP3 because it is still the standard. Whether or not it's the best, it's what most people are familiar with and (I believe) what most people want. And my MP3's are 10MB anyway, so reducing them to 10MB with OGG isn't really that appealing. Though I do think a 10MB OGG would almost certainly be better quality than a 10MB MP3. But sometimes it's about more than just the quality and the technical aspects. I do know that Mike encodes the shows in OGG for himself, but only shares MP3 because that's the standard. —puck71 |
|
|
|
|
Proc |
+ |
Tuesday, June 15, 2004 at 9:32 AM Bored. Curious. Take your pick. I'm always a little suspicious of projects whos #1 priority seems to be creating open source software. But hopefully OGG will get somewhere now that RealPlayer is going to support it. At this point there's not much of a reason to use oGG. —Proc |
|
|
|
|
NJC |
+ |
Tuesday, June 15, 2004 at 10:57 AM winamp doesn't support it? —NJC |
|
|
|
|
puck71 |
+ |
Tuesday, June 15, 2004 at 11:25 AM Winamp does support it. —puck71 |
|
|
|
|
MajandraFan |
+ |
Tuesday, June 15, 2004 at 2:03 PM So the answer is ignorance. That's ok.
To the first guy getting antsy, I don't tape the shows because I'm in Australia. You're just too uptight dude, I'm mad grateful that fans bother to upload them for free, I'd never hear episodes without them. Got Adam's 40th birthday episode last night; then he's going on about those coaster-sized areolas, it's the fucking best. Apparently areolas refer to the colour in the eye as well, according to dictionary.com.
I think my brother would use Acid Pro 3.0 to encode sound into oggs. Winamp 2, 3 and 5 play ogg. So does Windows Media and Real Player and Quicktime may not yet, I can't remember.
As for the files someone has already being 10mb, then they would be 5mb or 1mb. Oggs are more effective than VBR mp3 and again, with speech there is just so much empty space between syllables and on the sounds themselves since speech is only one note or maybe two or three if there's more than one person talking, that compressing it is shooting fish in a barrel.
But hey, keep on using mp3 and Windows 3.1 and maybe some of you use DOS while you're at it. Actually, I would like to use a modern version of DOS, windows is the biggest piece of shit in the universe, goddamn oligopolising computer companies, fucking everyone over for steady and large profit margins, fuck off!
If the technology was sweet and deregulated I would...well never mind. —MajandraFan |
|
|
|
|
puck71 |
+ |
Tuesday, June 15, 2004 at 2:07 PM
Edited Tuesday, June 15, 2004 at 2:16 PM I'm sure you're right about the file size, but my reason about catering to what MOST people want I think is still true. Once most people want OGG files, then I'll encode in OGG. Comparing it to Windows 3.1 and DOS doesn't really make sense, because yes they are both old technology like you say MP3 is, but the difference is that those are not the current standard whereas MP3 still is. Actually, hey, I'll try doing OGG for a few days and see how people react. —puck71 |
|
|
|
|
NJC |
+ |
Tuesday, June 15, 2004 at 2:30 PM I'm uptight? —NJC |
|
|
|
|
Azzgunther |
+ |
Wednesday, June 16, 2004 at 3:34 AM MajandraFan Said (translated): "Hey let's change the standards and confuse countless newbies!"
I agree that we could do better than 40 mb mp3 files, but until most media players support ogg (i.e. ogg makes some headway into the p2p market) don't expect much.
—Azzgunther |
|
|
|
|
ZT |
+ |
Wednesday, June 16, 2004 at 7:34 AM You should always try and piss off people how you want to do something for you. Thats brilliant. :) Ogg is better than MP3, and even MP3 Pro at low bitrates. I don't know if I'd say it's "several fold" better, but definately better. The larger problem is that people encoding shows will often switch from one lossy codec to another, or encode a lower bitrate version of a show from a something with the same codec at a higher bitrate, or are a little ignorant about things like lowpasses, etc. All of these 16kbps @ 16kHz mp3s, that try to encode all the sounds in 22050Hz, is really really really retarded. The shows would sound much better if they had been encoded from the no lossy format with a 6500Hz low pass. Not to mention that anything over 15000Hz and change is lost -- so theres significant waste in ALL of the mp3s that aren't at least using a 15000Hz lowpass. Ogg is also pretty well supported. The full version of winamp 5.03 plays, and streams ogg well (it has since at least winamp 2.8). Real Player Helix supports ogg. Nero has a plug-in to write oggs, cooledit (aka adobe audtion) has a plug in to support oggs. I'm just sad that my RipDrive only supports mp3 and wma. :( —ZT |
|
|
|
|
puck71 |
+ |
Wednesday, June 16, 2004 at 8:43 AM Well, I'm new at OGG but I'm trying to encode last night's show as OGG. I'm sliding that "quality" slider thing that is RECOMMENDED to use all the way to the left, but the file I get is still 15 MB. Sure the file sounds great, but I want to get the size to somewhere around 6 MB. Can anyone clue me in here? Should I be using the manual bitrate settings instead, even though it recommends the slider thing?? When I try to put in 16kbps to encode at it says it's gonna take a half hour!! I thought the 8-9 minutes using the quality slider was a lot (compared to the ~2 minutes it takes for mp3PRO). I'm settling for an MP3 for now so the people can start downloading the show, but if someone can tell me what settings I should be using to get around a 6 MB full show (~92 minutes) I'll try it for tonight's show. —puck71 |
|
|
|
|
ZT |
+ |
Wednesday, June 16, 2004 at 9:08 AM Hey Puck, I download Oggifier, and the VB files you'll need to run it (unless you have them aready). And, make sure you have the latest version off oggenc from vorbis.com. In the encoder tab in oggifier, theres a text bar for command line options. This is what I would recommend for producing a "good" low bitrate file. Unless I make a syntax mistake, you should just be able to cut and paste. :) -q 0 --downmix --resample 16000 --advanced-encode-option lowpass_frequency=6.5 If thats not small enough for you, then try this: -q -1 --downmix --resample 11025 --advanced-encode-option lowpass_frequency=6.5 Keep in mind, that as a source you should be usng something encoded in a non-lossy format from a non-lossy source (otherwise the fidelity will be significantly affected). So, if you're grabbing the show off FM and saving it to a wav or flac or something, then you're golden. If you're ripping the 91x stream, then don't waste your time. The "quality" settings can get a little confusing for those of us who are used to thinking in bitrates, etc. I'm not sure if I like them. Theres also a fair number of GUI interfaces for oggenc that won't let you encode anything lower than a "quality 1" ogg (-1 is as low as you can go) and/or force you to use integers for the quality setting (they can be real numbers, though I don't think thing theres much of a point of adding too many significant figures. But if you're really on the fence about using a quality 1 or a quality 2 or something, you can use a quality 1.5). Although, I would recommend using a quality setting with some tweaking (like in the switches above), rather than setting a bitrate. —ZT |
|
|
|
|
puck71 |
+ |
Wednesday, June 16, 2004 at 12:59 PM
Edited Wednesday, June 16, 2004 at 1:10 PM Well, I do rip the 91X stream, and I don't really wanna mess with all of that command line stuff. I just record with Totalrecorder and edit with Cool Edit. I'm not an audiophile, I just want it listenable at the lowest possible file size. Oh, and I did try the "-1" quality setting, and that's what gave me the 15 MB file. I want to go even lower... OK, edit #2: Do you know if there's a way I can cut and paste that command line stuff into Totalrecorder?? —puck71 |
|
|
|
|
ZT |
+ |
Wednesday, June 16, 2004 at 1:40 PM Hmm.. I don't use total recorder. But, if you're going off the 91x stream, which IIRC is wma, the best thing to do (fidelity wise) is leave it in that format at whatever bitrate and sample frequency it streams at. I've never found the claim that ogg files are always smaller than mp3s of a similar bite rate to be true. On average, I'd say there a little smaller. But thats not really the main advantage of the codec. If you're really interested, I think the guys who post loveline on usenet usually encode there shows at like 56k @ 44.1kHz, I know some folks keep 128kpbs copies too. Although it would definately be orders of magnitude worse than going from a loss less format, you could try converting from one of those to Speex, at like 8kpbs... You know, like I suggested in that other thread. :) That would probably give you a decent result. But going from the 24kbps (IIRC) 91x wma stream to an 8kbps Speex really feels wrong to me. It would be like going up to someone whose all ready crippled, and then poking one of his eyes out and pooping in it.... And then, maybe making him eat it. I mean, you could do it, and get a small file that probably didn't completely suck. But, you'll pay for it in the next life -- even if you're an atheist. —ZT |
|
|
|
|
puck71 |
+ |
Wednesday, June 16, 2004 at 2:26 PM Yeah, I just went through the half-hour required to encode the ogg at 16kbps, and it was virtually the exact same filesize as the 16kbps MP3 I made, and NOT as good quality. So I'm not really convinced that OGG is the solution to my Loveline needs at this point. —puck71 |
|
|
|
|
NJC |
+ |
Wednesday, June 16, 2004 at 4:35 PM I was hoping for a oggenc.dll which I didn't see on vorbis.com Total Recorder is worth checking out, ZT. The extensive scheduling options and the ability to encode to mp3 on the fly (while recording the source) are the reasons why I use it. —NJC |
|
|
|
|
NJC |
+ |
Wednesday, June 16, 2004 at 4:39 PM I stand corrected!
The SDK has dll's. —NJC |
|
|
|
|
arteitle |
+ |
Thursday, June 17, 2004 at 8:06 AM Using VBR instead of CBR wouldn't break anyone's MP3 player, but it could result in smaller files with higher quality, given appropriate encoding settings. Talk radio has enough gaps and silences that I'd think it would benefit greatly from VBR. Could I politely recommend it? —arteitle |
|
|
|
|
puck71 |
+ |
Thursday, June 17, 2004 at 8:15 AM
Edited Thursday, June 17, 2004 at 8:16 AM It might not break the MP3 player, but Cool Edit doesn't seem to always like VBR very much. Overall, CBR is just plain easier, and I'm happy with 10MB for a full show. I don't know how much it would decrease using VBR. However, I'd certainly consider trying it if given good settings to try. —puck71 |
|
|
|
|
arteitle |
+ |
Thursday, June 17, 2004 at 10:14 AM I couldn't say offhand what settings to use in Cool Edit, since I usually use Lame for MP3 encoding, and I haven't used it for much low-bitrate encoding so far. I'd guess that if you enabled VBR, you might be able to up the bitrate a notch and get similar file sizes, but it may take some experimentation. I might try recording the show off-the-air today and playing with encoding that myself. (The last time I did that was back in 1997 [19970918], and interestingly, I used the same settings then that you use today: 16 kbps, 16 kHz, mono...) —arteitle |
|
|
|
|