similar to: question on Opus quality vs MP3

Hello, I have a large collection of audio files contains music in mp3 format, due to need to free space of hard disk, I need to reduce their size. It seems opus is the best format for this purpose, in order to have the quality of original mp3 files, currently I use ffmpeg command to convert them to FLAC and then use opusenc, the official opus encoder, to convert FLAC files to opus. By using one

> I agree with that much of it, but that doesn't seem to me like such a "bad" > deal. I applaud the vorbis effort, don't get me wrong, but I don't think > it's evil for Frauhofer/IIS to charge people who want to use their > technology if they're using it for profit. It may be ugly and unsavory, > but it's nothing to get terribly upset over. I

> I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm not charging anything. As > mentioned, the royalties to record labels still stand if you don't follow > the rules, but this will be true regardless of the format > (mp3/vorbis/whatever.) Do you have any ads on your site? That's probably streaming related revenue. Do you list on shoutcast.com? There's definately

After reading http://mp3.radified.com/mp3.htm I sent Rad an explanation of some things as I understand them. He liked it and posted it on his site (still unlinked, use the URL below). Can somebody with better understanding of psycho-acoustic terms and the vorbis model check it and comment on it? In particular I didn't know how vorbis handles quantization noise. If you reply with

Fraunhofer and Thomson Multimedia release their new mp3pro codec and new licenseconditions for streaming mp3 : http://www.techreview.com/web/kiang/kiang060701.asp My comment is that the licensecharge isnt frighting compared to what we broadcaster pays in musicroyalties allready. Is this what you feared jack? :) -- Venlig hilsen/Kind regards Thomas Kirk ARKENA thomas@arkena.com

> >So uh, you think it's worth more for mp3, than the actual music > >involved? > > > >Come on. > > Hmm.. so what you're saying is that for under $2K I can get an unlimited > distribution license from the recording industry? To burn, distribute, > sell and market as much of their material as I like? Wow. Sign me up. Streaming music is $250

In case there are any Debian developers around here, I wanted to point out message <20020828154322.GA15114@chulak.naquadah.org> on the debian-devel list this morning. Another Debian developer is proposing to submit an mp3->vorbis transcoding program for inclusion in Debian. I have objected to this on the grounds that the resulting vorbis files will sound like crap, and I have also pointed

On Sat, 9 Jun 2001, Asymmetric wrote: > It should be noted that this fee applies only if you are delivering in mp3 > format "for profit." If you're doing it for free, you don't have to pay > them a dime.. from the quoted URL... > > ---- > "If MP3 is used for free distribution on the Internet, we will not charge > royalties," he says. But

Hello. Me again. Have you tried to encode piano solo? Noticed high bitrate Opus gave? And there's also artefact at 15kHz which wasn't in the original audio. Visible with Spek program. Download FLAC and Opus both files, new link: http://www.filedropper.com/example_3 FLAC full: 1084 kbps; FLAC solo: 465 kbps. with --bitrate 160: Opus full: 158 kbps; Opus solo: 190 kbps. Included also Spek

Hi guys, as MP3 and Opus have very similar objectives, I think the original poster's question was a valid one: Why does Opus have more artefacts in the lower frequency ranges than MP3 has? The spontaneous suspect that lower frequency artefacts may be more noticeably than higher frequency artefacts seems plausible, also. Is it a matter of energy (which is higher for higher frequencies)? When

Thomas, You should post this hear, as it's just as relevant ;) Hey guys, how do you feel now that you all owe Thompson $2k per year? Vorbis look more interesting now :) It's really disgusting how the technology is now worth more than the music. jack. ----- Forwarded message from Thomas Kirk <thomas@arkena.com> ----- Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 11:58:23 +0200 From: Thomas Kirk

A friend of mine made the following comment in a discussion I had with him that on a website we adminster we should offer a) WAV or maybe shorten files b) Ogg as a decent reference lossy encoded version He's been trying to convince me that we should offer MP3 (in lieu of WAV) and possibly Ogg. The audio files are primarily vocals I am not a physics guy but his statements don't

At 13:52 6/9/2001 -0600, you wrote: >So uh, you think it's worth more for mp3, than the actual music >involved? > >Come on. Hmm.. so what you're saying is that for under $2K I can get an unlimited distribution license from the recording industry? To burn, distribute, sell and market as much of their material as I like? Wow. Sign me up. >You think it would be nice if

Hi all, The vorbis codec is patent and royalty-free, but for mp3 one should in principle pay royalties to Fraunhofer institute ($0.05 or so ?) for each song recorded. But what about .ogg files that are made out of .mp3 files? Does the royalty then somehow inherit to the .ogg file? Just a thought... Roland -- --- >8 ---- List archives: http://www.xiph.org/archives/ Ogg project homepage:

This mail depends upon the fact that I don't have a couple of good earphones ;-) I read in the site that q=6 is a very high quality, but does it contain perceivable differencies from the original? (for 95% of people, of course). I also found q=6 to produce files slightly bigger (1/10 bigger) than those produced with lame VBR q=2 (about 192 bps on average). I always thought LAME VBR q=2

Hi! Sorry, I know the rules for comparing objective subjective listening impressions, but I'd like to know whether from the algorithmic or implementer's point of view the following personal impressions can be confirmed: Comparing MP3 with Vorbis at rather high bitrates, I had the impression the Vorbis sounded more crispy, while MP3 sounded somewhat softened. I preferred Vorbis for that

> performances. That's ~125,000 performances a year, which equates to about > $180,000. > > Significantly higher than the Frauhofer license, unless you generate > $9Mil/yr or more in revenue from your stream. The rates are in arbitration, and I doubt they will come out anywhere near that amount. It just isn't feasible, even for large companies. Reember, tradidional

Many of you have read and my "introduction to compressed audio with Vorbis" and given me excellent feedback. But with 1.0 about to hit the streets, I figured I'd freshen it up a bit. [ http://grahammitchell.net/writings/vorbis_intro.html ] In particular, it contains two paragraphs discussing the relative quality of Vorbis vs mp3 at a certain target bitrate. These figures seem

On Wed, Apr 21, 2004 at 10:52:38PM +0200, Jack Moffitt wrote: > > Does it matter if the stream is mp3 or ogg? > > No. It could be WAV, FLAC, or some 2-bit per sample mono format where > the music is unrecognizable. You'd still have to pay the royalties. It DOES matter if it's mp3. You have to pay the publisher royalties regardless, but in addition, there's a 2%

Last year I arranged with my college radio station and ITS department to webcast the radiostation using icecast. The webcast has been a wonderful success so far. My problem now is not technical, but political. A few days ago I recieved the following message from the station director: ================================================================== hey josh, i talked to [faculty advisor]