High quality Torrent file: MP3 or Ogg?
Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2005 9:01 pm
What's your preference?
The home for The Linux Link Tech Show and the LVLUG
https://www.thelinuxlink.net/forum/
I think 128k is alittle overkill for speech. 64, or 96k would be plenty. Also, anyone who bitches about the audio should know that re-encoding a lossy file to a higher bitrate won't improve sound quality, since the source has so much missing data to begin with.Tsuroerusu wrote:Here's my suggestion for you guys: A regular mp3, a regular ogg and a high quality OGG.
If you're only gonna do one high quality format you could up the quality a little more above 128 maybe, then the people who're still bitching about it can re-encode it themselves.
You certainly get a better result converting a 192 OGG to MP3 rather than 64 OGG to MP3, so even if people re-encode themselves, they will see a little benefit.Wally Balljacker wrote:Also, anyone who bitches about the audio should know that re-encoding a lossy file to a higher bitrate won't improve sound quality, since the source has so much missing data to begin with.
Oh, I thought you meant encoding to a higher bitrate.Tsuroerusu wrote:You certainly get a better result converting a 192 OGG to MP3 rather than 64 OGG to MP3, so even if people re-encode themselves, they will see a little benefit.Wally Balljacker wrote:Also, anyone who bitches about the audio should know that re-encoding a lossy file to a higher bitrate won't improve sound quality, since the source has so much missing data to begin with.
No No No, I was reffering to the process of converting the high quality ogg into an mp3.Wally Balljacker wrote:Oh, I thought you meant encoding to a higher bitrate.Tsuroerusu wrote:You certainly get a better result converting a 192 OGG to MP3 rather than 64 OGG to MP3, so even if people re-encode themselves, they will see a little benefit.Wally Balljacker wrote:Also, anyone who bitches about the audio should know that re-encoding a lossy file to a higher bitrate won't improve sound quality, since the source has so much missing data to begin with.
Ah, ok. That's actually a good idea. I'm making an MP3 out of the OGG right now to throw on my iPod. That works.Tsuroerusu wrote:No No No, I was reffering to the process of converting the high quality ogg into an mp3.Wally Balljacker wrote:Oh, I thought you meant encoding to a higher bitrate.Tsuroerusu wrote: You certainly get a better result converting a 192 OGG to MP3 rather than 64 OGG to MP3, so even if people re-encode themselves, they will see a little benefit.
Why not just encode the OGG as an MP3 and save bandwidth?Madar wrote:Okay first let me say that I am a big fan of the low quality “raw” file. Some of the most interesting and amusing stuff comes in this section. While I would love to embrace ogg vorbis the simple fact is that it's poorly supported on portables ( I bought an Iriver with high hopes a year ago but as we all know it doesn't “really” support ogg). Here is my dilemma: if you stop doing a raw mp3 I will go back to what I used to do which is downloading them both. I listen on my portable 99% of the time and I don't see that changing. If you stop doing a raw mp3 I will personally end up costing you twice as much in bandwidth (sorry I'm a dick like that). Solutions are tricky because everybody wants it their way and you can't encode 24+ different files. How about doing the raw data as a separate file? Then you could do four files 1. high quality ogg torrent, 2. low bit rate ogg 3. low bit rate mp3 and 4. low bit rate raw data mp3 (it's already in the high quality ogg).
Honestly I don't see what your worried about with just doing it all raw. Throw in a clip that announces the raw data begins here with a disclaimer for sensitive audiences to simply turn it off. After all I can't think anything in the raw data that is more racy than “licking that fine ass with a my tongue brush” and moaning Japanese porn girls and nobody seems to be complaining about that...
Madar
I guess the most logical thing would be to go with a 128k MP3 and OGG torrent, and 32k MP3 and OGG direct downloads. That's basically what LugRadio does. They have both formats in high and low quality. You can always put the extra stuff in all the files, if you don't want to shortchange anyone.dann wrote:Orinally the added content to the ogg-vorbis file was to promote the use of ogg. I screwed that up by putting the mp3 version of the ogg up for download because I made a version off the original so I could play it back on my portable device.
I'm a bit torn by this. Ideally I would like to promote the ogg in this manner but I don't like short changing our listeners in any way.