 |
 |
Ogg Conversion
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe, MI
Status:
Offline
|
|
Not sure where this topic should go, so lounging it. I have a whole lot of music that's in Ogg-Vorbis format and they don't play well in iTunes. I have the plugin to play them, they're just slow to start and get info on. Is there a way to convert them to AAC or MP3 without losing quality, or do I have to rip them again?
|
|
...
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Status:
Offline
|
|
Without a loss in quality? Nope. lossy -> lossy = quality loss.
|
We need less Democrats and Republicans, and more people that think for themselves.
infinite expanse
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status:
Offline
|
|
You *could* just rip to Apple Lossless.
That would increase the size of your music library, but it's the only form of compression that won't drastically lose audio quality in transcoding.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: England
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by york28:
Without a loss in quality? Nope. lossy -> lossy = quality loss.
anything -> lossy == quality loss 
The loss is no greater from an existing lossy format, than it is from a lossless format like an audio CD. It's just that some quality had already been lost when converting it to the first lossy format. It's cumulative, 'cos the quality doesn't come back.
But I personally don't think that converting between two lossy formats is the ultimate evil like some people make out. If you use a decent quality setting each time, IMO the sound quality remains acceptable. Sure, you wouldn't want to do the conversion every day - that implies poor planning. But if you're in a one-off situation like you appear to be now, then just try it - you may find it acceptable, especially if it's for using in the car or on an ipod or whatever.
Amorya
|
|
What the nerd community most often fail to realize is that all features aren't equal. A well implemented and well integrated feature in a convenient interface is worth way more than the same feature implemented crappy, or accessed through a annoying interface.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2003
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by faragbre967:
Not sure where this topic should go, so lounging it.
Digital Video & Audio
I have my audio encoded at 160 kb. If the ogg files are above that, then you should be good. That's what I've done in the same situation.I haven't noticed anything bad in the format change either. Usually, it's safe to avoid songs with a LOT of drum symbols crashing. It will bring a compressor to it's knees. (From my experience at least)
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by demograph68:
Usually, it's safe to avoid songs with a LOT of drum symbols crashing. It will bring a compressor to it's knees. (From my experience at least)
Actually, anything with lots of stuff going on (read: not House) will.
It's just that the artefacts are a lot more noticeable - if not downright awful - on the higher frequencies.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe, MI
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by demograph68:
Digital Video & Audio
I have my audio encoded at 160 kb. If the ogg files are above that, then you should be good. That's what I've done in the same situation.I haven't noticed anything bad in the format change either. Usually, it's safe to avoid songs with a LOT of drum symbols crashing. It will bring a compressor to it's knees. (From my experience at least)
The Ogg files are encoded at 192 and I was thinking about encoding them to 192 AAC.
|
|
...
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top