Windows Media player 11 and OGG and FLAC files?

I just updated my player and my wife’s with the new firmware, v01.02.26A… Question is can I rip in OGG and or FLAC in windows Media player 11?  I have all our music ripped using that player and in MP3’s at 128 and 192 bit rate now…  I have a second 8gb fuze that I will up date and then format to start fresh but I would like to try OGG and FLAC  formats in that player…  What is the best way to start? Like I said I am now using WMP 11 and if I can would like to use it…  Please tell me about setting bit rates or sample rates and the best way to get started with OGG and FLAC as I know nothing about them… I personally think that a good FM station sounds better then MP3’s in the bit rate that I’m using now… That is the reason for trying  OGG and FLAC.  I will be ripping from CD’s and have another computer I can dedicate to it for this use…  Thanks! George 

WMP 11 will not rip cds as ogg or flac. there are a few other programs that are good just do a search here i remember seeing a few threads about ripping in ogg and flac.

Media Monkey will do both in the free version.

Exact Audio Copy is probably the best ripper.

http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=EAC_and_Ogg_Vorbis

http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=EAC_and_FLAC

@d_headshot wrote:

Exact Audio Copy is probably the best ripper.

 

http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=EAC_and_Ogg_Vorbis

http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=EAC_and_FLAC

Does it convert? I used it to rip some flac to test but I didnt even look for a converter in it.

@conversionbox wrote:


@d_headshot wrote:

Exact Audio Copy is probably the best ripper.

 

http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=EAC_and_Ogg_Vorbis

http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=EAC_and_FLAC


Does it convert? I used it to rip some flac to test but I didnt even look for a converter in it.

Yup.  FLAC.exe is included with EAC.

EDIT:  But like Winamp, it converts during the ripping process.  It will also port out to any other encoder of choice (ogg, mp3, etc.)  It is not a converter, per se.

Message Edited by fuze_owner-GB on 04-09-2009 06:38 PM

Media Coder converts between many filetypes. 

What you want in a ripper, however, is something that will also go online and get the tag information as it rips. Media Monkey and EAC are both good for that, though not for the very newest albums because they use the user-generated Freedb online database, and some volunteer somewhere has to do the tags. 

Windows Media Player and iTunes (and I think Winamp) use CDDB, a commercial and slightly more reliable source for tags. But Winamp makes you pay for ripping,  Windows Media Player does only mp3 and Windows Media formats, and iTunes only does mp3, .wav (a copy of the CD files, not compressed) and Apple’s proprietary formats that iPods play. 

But  George-W, your problem is not that you are using mp3. Your problem is that you are using mp3 at 128 kbps, a low-quality bitrate.  (The bitrate is how many bits of information are used per second of music–more means better sound.)  In Windows Media Player (under Rip Music) you can raise the quality slider up to 192 or 256 or even 320 kbps and your mp3s will start to sound like music again. 

FLAC will be a more accurate copy, but a far bigger one.

Ogg may (or may not–I haven’t tested it myself) sound slightly better than mp3 for the same number of kbps, though I doubt the very slight difference would be apparent to anyone without super hi-fi playback. But many devices do not play .ogg. So if you intend to someday change brands of music player or share songs with friends, ogg may not be the most practical choice, even if in principle I love the idea of an open-source, hi-fi encoder. Mp3 has become the universal format–everything else is for the truly dedicated geek types. 

Thanks for the help everyone!  I ripped some 256 MP3’s in the mean time and I must say they have the tone and sound quality I was looking for…  I’m not sure why I could not hear the difference between 128 bit rate MP3’s and 192 bit MP3’s. But with 256 bit rate wow!!!  Now I’ll check out OGG and FLAC and see if I can get the same sound quality and save some space at the same time… Or is this just not possible?  George

FLAC won’t save space. Ogg might, a little.

@black_rectangle wrote:
FLAC won’t save space. Ogg might, a little.

Since switching to Ogg I can get about 150-200 more songs on my 4 gig configuration.

Half the size or less of an MP3 is not “a little” especially considering the quality compared to an MP3 lol.

@d_headshot wrote:
Half the size or less of an MP3 is not “a little” especially considering the quality compared to an MP3 lol.

Could you guide me as to how to set up the OGG files to equal the sound quality of MP3’s at 256 bit rate and have half the file size of the MP3 format? I still have to download and install the programs suggested but this would be great info I could use to get started in the right direction!!  Thank you!! George

Personally I thing OGG and MP3 is pretty comparable. I used to rip music to best quality OGG but my wife can’t play OGG’s on her Verizon Phone that she uses for music. So I am in the process of re-ripping everything to 320 MP3. If you sincerely care about good sound quality, the size of the files should mean nothing, IMO, of course. Especially with a player that is expandable. :wink:

And to my untrained ear I cannot hear any difference between the highest OGG and the best MP3. FLAC is far and away the best, of course, but in that case size is an issue. FLC files are 2 and 3 times larger then a similar MP3.

@peregrine wrote:

Personally I thing OGG and MP3 is pretty comparable. I used to rip music to best quality OGG but my wife can’t play OGG’s on her Verizon Phone that she uses for music. So I am in the process of re-ripping everything to 320 MP3. If you sincerely care about good sound quality, the size of the files should mean nothing, IMO, of course. Especially with a player that is expandable. :wink:

And to my untrained ear I cannot hear any difference between the highest OGG and the best MP3. FLAC is far and away the best, of course, but in that case size is an issue. FLC files are 2 and 3 times larger then a similar MP3.

 

While ogg vorbis is still good at high bit-rates, it really shines at the lower end of the bit-rate scale; where it easily surpases the sound quality of a comparible mp3.  A little experimentation is order, as everyone’s ears have different capabilities.

Before I switched to ogg vorbis, I encoded all my MP3’s at V0 (extreme) or at 320kbps.  Now that I’ve switched to ogg vorbis, most of my files are in the 192kbps range and they sound as good or better as 320kbps MP3’s.

I have several of my musician friends that encode their music at 128kbps (ogg vorbis) and are extremely happy with the results.  Myself, I feel while they surpass the musicality of a similar encoded MP3, lack a bit of depth and detail of slightly higher encoded ogg vorbis files.

With that said, I use my DMP’s as portable music devices, and nothing more.  While I can appreciate the capability of getting perfect quality out of FLAC files, I don’t use my device for such a pupose.  I use them when I’m on the go or as a simple means of lulling myself to sleep.  If I want extreme quality, I opt for using high quality full sized audio gear.

But that’s me.  Every person has to do a bit of testing to see what file type and encoder values work best for them.

Message Edited by fuze_owner-GB on 04-10-2009 07:16 AM

@black_rectangle wrote:
FLAC won’t save space. Ogg might, a little.

FLAC does save space. It’s (AFAIAA) the most efficient non-lossy compressed format available for the Fuze.
Message Edited by Fifer on 04-10-2009 03:27 PM

Fuze_Owner-GB,

Thanks!!  Ok so I’ll give OGG vorbis a try in 192bps… Knowing I’m now happy with MP3 at 256kbps… Your info should make me vary happy… All I was ever use too was good audio gear but now with our big TV and a small house there is no way to get good sound out of our room with a good system… House is to small for a dedicated media room. Then we got a fuze and I seen the possibilities with it and ear buds or head phones…  It is capable of doing a really great HQ and getting High end sound if set up for that IMO  George 

@Fifer

FLAC won’t save space compared to mp3, which was clear from the context of the original reply. Obviously it is smaller than a .wav file, but that wasn’t what was being discussed. 

George-W, what people are saying here in geek-speak is that an ogg file around 128 kbps will sound better than an mp3 file at 128 kbps. (I can’t vouch for this personally but will take their word for it.)  Neither of them, however, will be at optimum sound quality. 

However, when you get into the 200+ kbps range, ogg and mp3 are probably going to be indistinguishable from each other. Maybe you can save a negligible 20 or 30 kbps–again, I haven’t tested. And mp3 will play on a lot more devices.

Both ogg and mp3 take the music file, analyze it and decide what can be thrown out to make the file smaller with the least impact on sound quality. The programmers who designed ogg and mp3 made different choices about what can be discarded.

When players had less built-in memory or added storage, it was important to get the maximum sound quality out of every kilobyte. That’s why 128 kbps became the conventional bitrate: it was passable quality for putting a lot of songs on a low-capacity player. Even now, very smart people are working to make your dinky computer speaker or your cell-phone speaker sound good through psychoacoustic illusions.

But now that you can throw a 16GB card into a Fuze and plug in a pair of quality headphones, an extra 1MB per song doesn’t mean that much. 

So, fine,  if you want to absolutely maximize the number of songs at a slightly lower bitrate, go ahead and use ogg. But like Peregrine above, you may end up later re-ripping your collection to mp3 for a different music player. 

Black-Rectangle,

Luckily I’m still at the thinking mode…  Your making me put more thought to this hole processes…  Thanks as this is a good thing at this point… OK MP3’s to me I thought they sounded ok when I started using my Fuze… In reality it was my first MP player and really didn’t thing that it would sound as good as it did with mp3 at 128 kbps… I just never thought of quality sound coming from a digital recorder  that was any good…  Now that i have it for almost a year I feel that mp3 at 128bkbps rate do sound good…  more input would be they sound low in volume and flat with out the tranluscent highs of a good HQ sound  system lows are ok with good phones but from lows to highs “Mid’s” are a bit to muddy for my taste right now…  I don’t know if mp3’s in 192 kbps will clean things up enough for me…  I’ll just have to play and see… But I did find that MP3’s in 256kpbs bit rate do do it for me… every thing I look for in good sound is there for me… I can hear things in music I could never hear before… Take a hit on a one lick on any instrument I can hear the initial sound with a clear aftermath of resilience or after math of that sound that I just could not hear before… I’m sure you could explain it better then I but I think I can get my point across-ed…  That’s what I’m looking now… Sorry for my poor typing skills!!  George 

Black-Rectangle wrote:

@Fifer

FLAC won’t save space compared to mp3, which was clear from the context of the original reply. Obviously it is smaller than a .wav file, but that wasn’t what was being discussed. 

 

George-W, what people are saying here in geek-speak is that an ogg file around 128 kbps will sound better than an mp3 file at 128 kbps. (I can’t vouch for this personally but will take their word for it.)  Neither of them, however, will be at optimum sound quality. 

 

However, when you get into the 200+ kbps range, ogg and mp3 are probably going to be indistinguishable from each other. Maybe you can save a negligible 20 or 30 kbps–again, I haven’t tested. And mp3 will play on a lot more devices.

 

Both ogg and mp3 take the music file, analyze it and decide what can be thrown out to make the file smaller with the least impact on sound quality. The programmers who designed ogg and mp3 made different choices about what can be discarded.

 

When players had less built-in memory or added storage, it was important to get the maximum sound quality out of every kilobyte. That’s why 128 kbps became the conventional bitrate: it was passable quality for putting a lot of songs on a low-capacity player. Even now, very smart people are working to make your dinky computer speaker or your cell-phone speaker sound good through psychoacoustic illusions.

 

But now that you can throw a 16GB card into a Fuze and plug in a pair of quality headphones, an extra 1MB per song doesn’t mean that much. 

 

So, fine,  if you want to absolutely maximize the number of songs at a slightly lower bitrate, go ahead and use ogg. But like Peregrine above, you may end up later re-ripping your collection to mp3 for a different music player. 

@george_w wrote:


@d_headshot wrote:
Half the size or less of an MP3 is not “a little” especially considering the quality compared to an MP3 lol.


 

Could you guide me as to how to set up the OGG files to equal the sound quality of MP3’s at 256 bit rate and have half the file size of the MP3 format? I still have to download and install the programs suggested but this would be great info I could use to get started in the right direction!!  Thank you!! George

http://ixbtlabs.com/articles/oggvslame/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vorbis

Some interesting articles to read. For the comparisons, a q8 vorbis file has an average bitrate of 256 kbps. There have been some articles on hydrogenaudio that explained which q levels had the same quality with a lower file size. Q4 has an average bitrate of 128 kbps. I haven’t done any tests so far, but I think it would be worth a try to encode a file in q4 vorbis and compare it to a 256 kbps mp3.

The only issue I’m seeing with EAC, unless I don’t have it set right, is that it won’t convert FLAC files. In fact, it will give an error message stating the file is not uncompressed WAV if any format beyond WAV is used.