Burning Ogg Vorbis tracks to audio CD

And just briefly, if you care about this sort of thing: If you own Nero (well, own, have a downloaded/burnt copy, whatever), you can legally use a freeware plugin as was mentioned earlier.

But in addition, it's also always better to use Nero to burn audio CD's directly from the OGG files, rather than converting a lossy format like OGG back to WAV and then burning (converting from lossy formats loses audio quality put simply). If the Ogg's are very high quality (q7 and up), you're probably OK (Ogg Vorbis is a pretty reasonable format as far as converting back and forth goes, as opposed to MP3), but much lower and it's, well, a bad idea. But if you generally listen to low-quality MP3 files, ignore this message.

- Spike

Most amazing jew boots

Admittedly, I am using the assumption that Nero doesn't decode them. I mean, I've used programs that obviously decoded the OGG to a WAV and then burned it. Nero is probably really efficient and does it lightning fast- but I've never seen it do it (I check).

That's probably it. But I was thinking that maybe.. ah well. I'll have to rethink that one. Thanks guys.

- Spike

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Right, thanks again guys.

Incidentally (and this is probably OT, but eh ), I was under the impression converting MP3 to WAV (especially non VBR/HQ MP3) was a really bad idea, whereas Ogg Vorbis apparently converts to WAV with minimal quality loss. I mean, isn't converting both ways lossy? Just because you make a MP3 a WAV again, surely that loses quality again.

Correct me if I'm wrong- I'm just trying to understand here, not have a go at anyone or sound arrogant or anything.

- Spike

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Yeah, I got that in theory, but why wouldn't converting from one format to another, regardless of lossy->lossless or vice versa make a difference? Surely it's bad quality-wise either way.

I think I get it though, Niki. Gotta bust these myths in my head sometime. Thanks as always.

- Spike

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Don't misunderstand me here- I understand perfectly well what you mean. I'm just asking questions, flights of fancy.

Quote:

On the other hand, decoding a lossy-compressed file results in no additional quality loss. PCM WAV files consist of nothing but raw, uncompressed audio data, that digitally represents an analog waveform. You can't have any of the tidy digital containers I mentioned before with WAV, so you have to toss them and expand the MP3 out to get it to conform with the PCM standard. That's all that decoding does. It may help you to grasp the concept if you think of decoding not as converting to another format but as expanding what's already there.

I mean, it sounds like you're almost saying decoding a MP3 to WAV improves the quality.

But I understand. If you were to encode a WAV to MP3, and then the MP3 back to WAV, the original WAV would be the best, but the latter two would be equal (just not in filesize).

- Spike

How ya doing, buddy?

I don't know either- I just read a lengthy Hydrogen Audio forum thread about it and certainly get it now. I guess I presumed converting lossy to anything, even lossless, had to be bad. Just one of thos ethings you (wrongly) assume I guess.

- Spike

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Oh, no kidding. Don't think I'm a *complete* idiot for the lossy->lossless mistake, I fully understand about lossy->lossy, etc.

It's actually a big issue for me, and the Sierra music community- we (QuestStudios and my site) use Ogg Vorbis, and a lot of people don't understand Ogg or convert the Ogg, etc.

To be honest, the game music community is really disappointing in that regard- it's either lossless formats like FLAC or it's MP3, no alternatives. Why MP3 is still the format of choice is beyond me.

- Spike

FELIPE NO

To derail further

I guess, if you're some kind of audiophile, or have nice headphones, or like good quality music (which I'msure most of us satisfy some of the criteria of), I don't see why you'd encode or rip your music in MP3, or accept MP3 downloads, when it's JUST as easy to rip as Ogg Vorbis is (wow, I have to drag and drop my WAV's on a fish). Really, MP3 is more annoying to bother with. OggDropXPd is damned easy and GOOD.

Seriously. This is an audio community. It's also got a lot of rebels, people who like to download illegally and such. Why wouldn't you support the better, open-source format (hint: not MP3)?

Also, I've seen great Vorbis players. But if you're using shitty headphones, and an Ipod with some crappy EQ you probably wouldn't notice. Guess that's the real reason, people's hearing has been lost over the last 5 years.

- Spike

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

I don't mean purely "same quality lower filesize", as that *doesn't* mean that it sounds better.

I've seen some great Hydrogen Audio forum threads where they've weighed it up- and Ogg Vorbis around quality 6-8 can closely match what a CD sounds like, but the VBR Mp3's simply aren't quite as good.

Why's that a big deal, when the difference is small? It isn't so much. But when you could use one of two encoders, and one's better- why use the other. Vorbis is free and open-source which as I said should appeal to us "free"-spirited individuals, and Ogg players are numerous in number now.

There's only a handful of real reasons to use MP3 as I see it, and they mainly are laziness or ignorance, or some sort of 'tradition'.

Quote:

It's been a while since I've followed the codec scene, but wasn't Ogg Vorbis actually inferior to MP3 at high bitrates (and superior at low ones)?

The way I understand it, Vorbis uses a 'clever' version of VBR which basically varies the bitrate incrementally. Not to be confused with VBR MP3, which varies in blocks of 32 (i.e. uses 192 kbps one second, 224 the next), Ogg varies the bitrate constantly to get the balance right between quality and filesize. That's how they're smaller than MP3.

As for quality, Vorbis beats MP3 at any bitrate (well, except if the Ogg was encoded at a really low bitrate and the MP3 was encoded at a really high one, obviously), from some excellent reviews I've seen.

The reason they produce different quality (and sounding) encoded files is that the codec filters are different, the psychoacoustics are different etc. They're not merely different forms of compression like ZIP or RAR, where smaller filesize is the only means of measuring. 10 KB filesize here and there is irrelevant, as Niki points out (although I don't think a 350 GB harddisk would hold my collection of VGM in lossless formats).


To qualify, let me say I don't make such statements lightly- if you look at old topics on my message board, you'll see I was once (not so long ago) very anti-Vorbis. It's taken a lot of research and really, there's no time I've seen where anyone's claimed MP3 was a superior format (at least, not satisfactorily), it's always the reverse.

It took a long time to convince me. But generally speaking, I only see people using MP3 over Ogg due to MP3 players they have. That's pretty weak.
I've found no real barriers to using it- WinAmp plays the files, Ogg players exist, etc.

Of course, if I want to burn a MP3 CD, I still do it, and don't have nightmares over the minimal quality reduction, or anything. But my point is that when *I* rip and when *I* convert my WAV's that I create to Ogg, I do it because I want everyone else to hear my music as close quality-wise to the original source file, without being lossless itself.

Of course of course, codecs change quality-wise all the time. But I haven't (yet) heard any news to change my mind.

EDIT: In fact, http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/...howtopic=50750

- Spike

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Basically, that's what I used to think too, which is why I'm trying not to be uppity (especially since it's still somewhat subjective).

It doesn't sound like many people in the VGM community (and I'm not talking about leechers, but respected members) think very hard about this stuff, which is disappointing to say the least.

- Spike

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Forgive me if I'm showing my ignorance Rimo (and others), but I haven't heard anywhere that Musepack is superior to Ogg Vorbis.

To be fair, I haven't heard much about MPC though. I'm fairly sure the test that made me choose Ogg included MPC though.

- Spike

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Yep, that's the one. Only problem is it's out of date. I personally want to do my own listening test.. LAME hasn't come so far since then (as opposed to Ogg with aoTuv's encoders), so I can be fairly confident Vorbis is still in the lead. Still, that's why you run tests, otherwise it's well, subjective

Testing is confusing though. And as you say, subjectivity can be a problem when rating scales become like that. If you look at ABX (double-blind) tests, 5 is 5- perfect, exactly like the CD audio. There can't be 6/5 or whatever. 5/5 would be transparent.

If you are good enough, when you do an ABX you'll rate the original WAV file 5/5, anyway. Or lucky enough

- Spike

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Yeah. It (the reencoded file) doesn't care about the original source data's quality, but rather the current copy's quality, if that makes sense.

Moguta, I never said "everyone's a moron for using MP3", I'm just wonderign why almost noone uses Vorbis. I totally understand why people use MP3, I just think they're all poor reasons. It's just as easy if not easier to use Ogg- I haven't got my head around MP3 switches yet, and I like to think I understand this sort of thing.

Quote:

You, Spikey, might care to use Vorbis, but honestly you cannot expect everyone else to be so eager about it, just as I can't expect everyone to care enough to use my audio ripping guide. Some people just want their music on their hard drive fast, quality be damned

Again, I haven't sent a mass GFF PM/email saying "Vorbis is the way to go", or whatever. And I understand your frustration about not everyone using the best VBR MP3 they could be.

But, so what if I can't expect that? Just because people want music fast doesn't make my assessment any less valid, it just means people are stubborn and ill-informed.

Quote:

And while you assert that it is not a filesize/quality issue, in the majority of cases that's exactly the question: How many bits does this codec take to represent audio with audible transparency? MP3's approximation of human psychoacoustics is good enough to produce humanly-transparent audio, and so is Vorbis' model. (Although, there are some uncommon samples that will make either codec artifact at just about any bitrate.)

Well, from experience I've learnt Vorbis is far superior to MP3 at recreating a WAV than MP3 has ever been. <shrugs> There's a lot of reason to choose Vorbis. I guess it goes back to the supermarket theory- there's so much to choose from, people don't have enough time to make (fully) informed decisions, so they shop around, or just don't care.

Quote:

Also, I find it hard to believe that, knowing all of this you do about Vorbis, you did not realize that all codecs are (and indeed must be) decoded to get at the audio data inside.

I guess I assumed that all decoding was lossy, as the files were being converted from a lossy format, which couldn't improve the sound.. I guess it's one of those silly things (I learnt it from another music forum I visit, I think). But that's why I visit places like Hydrogen Audio and GFF, because I love (game) music and good quality audio. I searched on HA for a while finding out info afterwards, to dispel more of the myth.

- Spike

Most amazing jew boots