Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Ogg at quality setting 10 Vs FLAC (Read 12639 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Ogg at quality setting 10 Vs FLAC

I don't have endless HDD space, so was thinking of using ogg CD images (with cue) rather than FLAC.

I am going to use a Squeezebox2 with a Cambridge Audio 640a AMP and Mission 701 speakers. I will also be burning some CD's from these images and using Foobar's convert feature to MP3's for my MP3 player.

Please tell me why or why not i should do this?

Ogg at quality setting 10 Vs FLAC

Reply #1 –
I cannot really answer your question, but I had the same problem. Now, I use wavpack lossy in the 400 kbps range.
Stupidity is root of all evil.

Ogg at quality setting 10 Vs FLAC

Reply #2 –
Quote
I don't have endless HDD space, so was thinking of using ogg CD images (with cue) rather than FLAC.

I am going to use a Squeezebox2 with a Cambridge Audio 640a AMP and Mission 701 speakers. I will also be burning some CD's from these images and using Foobar's convert feature to MP3's for my MP3 player.

Please tell me why or why not i should do this?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=335177"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


You might consider generating FLAC's at the start of your ripping process, then generating OGG and MP3 by batch once you are satisfied with the tags that have been established. From that point, delete the FLAC's to save space. Something like this would be the way I would approach a limited disk space situation. At the end of this process I would have lossy encoded files that did not suffer lossy-to-lossy transcoding artifacts and, for efficiency, I could modify my batches to be as large as possible but fit inside my limited disk space.

Or we could add space, but I am assuming with the above that purchasing more space is out of the question.

Ogg at quality setting 10 Vs FLAC

Reply #3 –
Quote
I don't have endless HDD space, so was thinking of using ogg CD images (with cue) rather than FLAC.

I am going to use a Squeezebox2 with a Cambridge Audio 640a AMP and Mission 701 speakers. I will also be burning some CD's from these images and using Foobar's convert feature to MP3's for my MP3 player.

Please tell me why or why not i should do this?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=335177"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Why -q10 if you are going to do this *and* especially if you're short of disk space?

Ogg at quality setting 10 Vs FLAC

Reply #4 –
Quote
Quote
I don't have endless HDD space, so was thinking of using ogg CD images (with cue) rather than FLAC.

I am going to use a Squeezebox2 with a Cambridge Audio 640a AMP and Mission 701 speakers. I will also be burning some CD's from these images and using Foobar's convert feature to MP3's for my MP3 player.

Please tell me why or why not i should do this?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=335177"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Why -q10 if you are going to do this *and* especially if you're short of disk space?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=335183"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Because it's still about a third the size of FLAC files.
 

Ogg at quality setting 10 Vs FLAC

Reply #5 –
I would rip what i can now to flac and add more hard disk space when i can.  Seems more sensible to have it there so you dont have to re-rip in the future.

Ogg at quality setting 10 Vs FLAC

Reply #6 –
My ears (normal ones, in their twenties) with my headphones (K-55) find -q 6 transparent. I keep FLAC archives for the same reason I keep PNG archives of the output of my digital camera: perfectionism, hating the very fact that my original data has been tampered with.

Vorbis -q 10 gives you a nominal bit rate of 500 kbit/s, scratching the lower regions of what you get with FLAC. Effectively, this means that your file savings over FLAC aren't very large.
FLAC – all your bit are belong to you

Ogg at quality setting 10 Vs FLAC

Reply #7 –
are really do not see the benefit of using that high of bit rate when q6 is transparent for almost everyone.  If you are going to use a lossy because of space, then don't go with overkill on q10 if you cannot even tell the difference.
Chaintech AV-710

Ogg at quality setting 10 Vs FLAC

Reply #8 –
I agree, there's not much of a point in using lossy for such high bitrates. One thing you could do is rip to both Vorbis -q5 AND mp3, together they should still take less space than -q10 and it removes the need of transcoding to your player. But ripping to a lossless format and using that for transcoding as you like is very highly recommended, even if you don't have enough space for all your cd's right now.
Veni Vidi Vorbis.

Ogg at quality setting 10 Vs FLAC

Reply #9 –
Hmm.. 500 vs the typical 800k is around 40% difference. Come on that is a huge difference.

Ogg at quality setting 10 Vs FLAC

Reply #10 –
Q10 is nonsense in my opinion. Bitrate is much higher that say Q6 but still doesn't have the advantages of lossless encoding. Go either for lossless or lossy at sane bitrates...

Wavpack lossy might be a good compromise at these "in between" bitrates.