[peel] re: techy. May I borrow your ears?

[Roger Carruthers]

Ogg certainly works for me ­ you get a better bang per buck than .mp3, ie.
equivalent sized files sound better (or less bad, depending how you look at
it) as .ogg than they do as .mp3.  It¹s just a shame there¹s not as much
support for the format, but in your case ie. for archiving, that¹s not
really an issue.
 I¹ve yet to come across a lossless codec that can do much better than 2:1 ­
I think you¹re up against the limits of physics there.
 cheers
Roger


On 22/03/2008 16:55, "lollygagger" <lollygagger@talktalk.net> wrote:

>  
>  
> 
> Hi All
>  
> May I borrow your ears?
>  
> I'm back to archiving my Peely & assorted tapes to hard drive and dvd's  (4
> c90's to a dvd) 
>  
> Its going to be about 130 dvd's and two large hard drives before I have
> finished but I am looking to make a back up archive copy I can leave with a
> family member.
>  
> I have been looking at compression encoders to bring my music data to 1:4 so
> that my entire collection can be copied to 30 dvd's. Flac gives a ratio of
> 1:2. WMA and MP3 at 320kbs appear to lose the original dynamic sound.
>  
> I have personally found that by using the dbpoweramp prog with OGG at 350kbs
> giving the 1:4 that there doesn't appear to be any difference from the
> original.
>  
> Can anyone else confirm that OGG gives the best performance for compressed
> music?
>  
> Your ears and opinions would be useful (Keeping in mind that OGG would be used
> as an archived copy and not for a typical player)
>  
> Adam
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>