On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 11:50:30AM -0700, Bob Proulx wrote: > Curt wrote: > > Bob Proulx wrote: > > >> I'm lazy so I'd use the command line. > > > I have the opposite problem. Everything I have is in ogg format. But > > > sometimes I want to play on a device that doesn't understand ogg and > > > can only play mp3 format. I simply convert the file to .wav format > > > and then encode it again to mp3. You could do something similar. > > > > That's seems silly. Why convert it to wav first? Why not convert > > directly to mp3: > > ffmpeg -i example.ogg to example.mp3 > > or whatever the command would be. > > In my case I needed to produce mp3 files and mp3 encoders are of > course patented and so not available in every tool and not available > in the free ffmpeg. Since wav files are lossless they are the desired > middle layer. If you are dealing with an audio collection then the > size of the intermediate wav file isn't going to be a limiter. The > cpu encoding will be the limiter. So for me going ogg to wav and then > wav to mp3 was just perfect and impossible to do with ffmpeg. > If you instead use flac as an intermediate step, you may be able to preserve the meta tags. Going to wav, you will almost certainly lose them.
> Plus because ffmpeg is not the best tool for the wav to ogg task. It > is great for producing wav files but not as good as oggenc for vorbis > encoding. > > $ ls -log 01_-_An_Awful_Lot_Of_Running.mp3 > -rw-r--r-- 1 5.9M 2012-02-20 11:03 01_-_An_Awful_Lot_Of_Running.mp3 > > $ ffmpeg -i 01_-_An_Awful_Lot_Of_Running.mp3 > 01_-_An_Awful_Lot_Of_Running.ogg > > $ ls -log 01_-_An_Awful_Lot_Of_Running.ogg > -rw-rw-r-- 1 27M 2012-02-20 11:06 01_-_An_Awful_Lot_Of_Running.ogg > > $ ffmpeg -i 01_-_An_Awful_Lot_Of_Running.mp3 > 01_-_An_Awful_Lot_Of_Running.wav > $ oggenc 01_-_An_Awful_Lot_Of_Running.wav > $ ls -log 01_-_An_Awful_Lot_Of_Running.ogg > -rw-rw-r-- 1 3.3M 2012-02-20 11:04 01_-_An_Awful_Lot_Of_Running.ogg > > Look at the sizes of the files. This is because ffmpeg is producing > flac not vorbis encoding. Remember that ogg is a container format not > an encoding format. In that case you might as well simply keep the > wav files. But of course we compress as a compromise in order to save > disk space. A *lot* of disk space. > > There is almost certainly an option to ffmpeg to encode with vorbis > encoding. There is an option for everything. And it is changing. > Between Lenny and Squeeze and Wheezy it is evolving. I know that by > the time I read through all of the documentation to figure it out that > I would already have had the job done using oggenc. (This is > someone's chance to jump in and tell us the optimal set of options to > ffmpeg to produce an ogg vorbis file. I know I would note the options > down for future reference.) But using oggenc is simple, immediately > obvious, and does a good job of it. > It would have to be one of these (but I haven't tested it) ffmpeg -i somesong.mp3 -acodec vorbis somesong.ogg or ffmpeg -i somesong.mp3 -acodec libvorbis somesong.ogg > Remember that the Unix philosophy is all about modularity. Write > small dedicated tools and join them together to produce a greater > whole. I would like to simply pipe from simple program to simple > program and let a multi-core cpu run the processes in parallel. Tools > that try to do everything in one program with ten thousand options > violate that philosophy and are harder to use and harder to expand > upon. > > > Anyway, it's double lossy whatever you do, and maybe even worse if you > > go the roundabout wav route (though I don't really know, but you can't > > fool mother nature). > > Decoding and encoding again will obviously introduce artifacts. Just > like the laws of thermodynamics say you can't win, you can't get > ahead, you will always lose. But if you only have one thing and you > want to get to another thing then you are going to transcode because > that is what you have and there is no other way. And if you are an > average individual with average ears and an average set of headphones > listening in an average environment it is unlikely that you will be > able to tell the difference. It won't be of the highest audio quality > but neither will it be of the lowest. And if your purpose is to > listen while say biking out in the wind then you are most definitely > not going to be able to tell the difference. > I decided a few years ago that I'd use flac for my entire music collection, and if needed, convert to another format for reasons of portability, etc. This way I only get one lossy transcode. > > Or maybe my understanding is shaky you'll illuminate me. > > Bob -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
