Hello, I'm seeking advice here as I'm intend in the not to distant future to start encoding my CD collection, and I'm not sure what to use. Do I use the still current v1.0, or am I better off using a newer build? Also, I've started to notice mention of versions 1.0.1 and 1.1 in these mailing lists. Are these worth holding out for? I'll probably encode at about Q7, and am using Windows (though I'm happy with command line tools). Any help appreciated. Regards, Toonie. <p>----------------------------------------- Email provided by http://www.ntlhome.com/ <p>--- >8 ---- List archives: http://www.xiph.org/archives/ Ogg project homepage: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/ To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to 'vorbis-request@xiph.org' containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the body. No subject is needed. Unsubscribe messages sent to the list will be ignored/filtered.
Right now, the 1.0 and Post-1.0 CVS versions would be roughly the same at q7... Unfortunately, Xiph's libraries have very little noticeable quality improvement past q6, so if you'd like to encode that high, I'd suggest using one of Garf's tunings (available at sjeng.org, or Rarewares). They're specifically tuned for qualities 5-10, and achieve better quality than Xiph's libraries, albeit with a slightly higher bitrate per quality level. If you'd rather wait, I'd suggest you wait until 1.0.1 or when Garf's tunings are merged into the main CVS tree. 1.0.1 is supposed to be mostly bugfixes, while 1.1 is supposed to be massive low-bitrate tuning. Tone wrote:> Hello, > > I'm seeking advice here as I'm intend in the not to > distant future to start encoding my CD collection, and > I'm not sure what to use. Do I use the still current > v1.0, or am I better off using a newer build? Also, I've > started to notice mention of versions 1.0.1 and 1.1 in > these mailing lists. Are these worth holding out for? > I'll probably encode at about Q7, and am using Windows > (though I'm happy with command line tools). Any help > appreciated. > > Regards, > Toonie. > > > ----------------------------------------- > Email provided by http://www.ntlhome.com/ > > > --- >8 ---- > List archives: http://www.xiph.org/archives/ > Ogg project homepage: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/ > To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to > 'vorbis-request@xiph.org' > containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the body. No > subject is needed. > Unsubscribe messages sent to the list will be > ignored/filtered.--- >8 ---- List archives: http://www.xiph.org/archives/ Ogg project homepage: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/ To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to 'vorbis-request@xiph.org' containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the body. No subject is needed. Unsubscribe messages sent to the list will be ignored/filtered.
OK, thanks very much for sharing your thoughts. It has helped me in my decision making. I'm going to start doing some tests, using Garf's tunings (Oggenc2) at q6. Sounds good so far, but need to do some proper tests (ie burn some decoded tracks to audio CD). One more question though. Since the Garf's tuned version encodes to a higher average bitrate, if you compared this with a straight v1 encoding with higher quality so as to match ave bitrate, which would sound better? Sorry if the question sounds too dumb. I do really appreciate Garf's contribution, but for now at least, it does seem to have muddied the water a little. Thanks again, Tone. ----------------------------------------- Email provided by http://www.ntlhome.com/ <p>--- >8 ---- List archives: http://www.xiph.org/archives/ Ogg project homepage: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/ To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to 'vorbis-request@xiph.org' containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the body. No subject is needed. Unsubscribe messages sent to the list will be ignored/filtered.
Jonathan Wrote:> > And about muddying the water, we all hope it's only a > matter of time until Garf's tunings are merged into the > main CVS, because as far as I know there have been no > samples which sounded worse with Garf's tunings, and it > improves quality on all samples I've ever tried ABXing. > =) > > Heh, I feel a bit strange being the unofficial spokesman > for Garf... I just hope I don't give out any wrong > information... All I can reccomend on that note is: trust > your ears. =) If you're looking for a difference, ABX it.Your comments clarify things for me greatly. I hope I wasn't sounding too critical of Garfs work. I didn't mean to, I was just trying to convey my confusion, which you've helped to eliminate. Many Thanks. Tone. ----------------------------------------- Email provided by http://www.ntlhome.com/ <p>--- >8 ---- List archives: http://www.xiph.org/archives/ Ogg project homepage: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/ To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to 'vorbis-request@xiph.org' containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the body. No subject is needed. Unsubscribe messages sent to the list will be ignored/filtered.