Which is best OGG converting from FLAC...standard, SSE, SSE3?

[The Dog Guy]

After doing a little forum digging here and over at the Hydrogenaudio forums, I did find a few things regarding "best outcome" settings for FLAC to OGG conversion, but...

• The posts were pretty old - don't know how things may have changed
• Couldn't seem to find any "layperson friendly" comparisons between the three

I really enjoy music but don't consider myself an audiophile. Also, I like to think I'm pretty smart, but don't have the time to climb more of the technical learning curve than I already have...I'd like to remain "an articulate end user".

So, bottom line, in converting recently re-ripped FLAC archive files to OGG, what if any trade-offs exist regarding sound quality, file size and conversion speed between "Standard", SSE, and SSE3?

Also, what are the "best overall" settings for the quality/VBR setting considering the above?

Finally, if you all recommend the "Standard" OGG encoder, it also has the options regarding Frequency, Channels, and the "Finer Quality Resolution" check box...thoughts?

Many thanks in advance. I've tried my best to self serve on these but seem to have hit my threshold.

[BrodyBoy]

Re: Which is best OGG converting from FLAC...standard, SSE, SSE3?

Finally, if you all recommend the "Standard" OGG encoder.....

Hi Dog Guy, welcome to the forum. I think the reason you're not getting a bunch of responses is that OGG is not a codec used by many of us around here, so we're not able to comment on the specific encoder settings. (My assumption is based on the fact that I've seen very few questions or discussions about it.) My personal impression is that OGG isn't nearly as widely-used or supported as mp3 or acc.

Is there any particular reason you're going with OGG?

[thexfile]

Re: Which is best OGG converting from FLAC...standard, SSE, SSE3?

OPUS is the next generation.

http://www.opus-codec.org/

[The Dog Guy]

Re: Which is best OGG converting from FLAC...standard, SSE, SSE3?

First, thanks to BrodyBoy and thexfile for taking time.

BrodyBoy, in the reading I'd done, which I know is dated, the Hydrogenaudio crowd and a couple other audiophile groups had kind of adopted OGG as their "preferred" codec. Again, I understand the dated nature of some of my references and know there's a spectrum of adoption, beliefs and preferences within those groups and take everything with a grain of salt.

I probably avoided AAC because of its early association with Apple. Since their early days, I've hated all things Apple/Mac/i-anything; their propensity for painting consumers into a "proprietary corner" just always galled me and they've done it since the beginning. I don't mean to start any debate, it's just how a personally feel about it and will never (if given a choice) own or use anything Apple owned, derived, etc.

When I first started dabbling in various "shootout" articles and so on, I also ended up gravitating to OGG because everything at the time seemed to point toward a combination of higher "general" audio quality at comparatively smaller file sizes, particularly related to MP3. Maybe that's all changed?

My bottom lines for whatever I choose, though, include...

• Easy to incorporate into good, intuitive software such as DB; I've tried tangling with EAC and Foobar and their a little to involved for my needs
• Good combination of highest "general" quality with smallest size; I like to pack as much onto my phone as possible with minimal sacrifice
• Compatible with different stereo receiver brands, Sonos, and all of the various home server options (Windows, NAS, etc.)

So I don't know, if someone can provide the compelling argument, I suppose I'm open. I just REALLY don't want to have to go through the exercise again. I work quite a bit and travel for business as well. I'd like to find "the" combination of archival and portable formats that become my standard without having to always search around for latest/greatest, etc. For the same reasons, I'm not inclined to be on the cutting or even bleeding edge of betas, etc. I don't have time for re-doing things because bugs haven't been worked out.

Thanks again for your time and thoughts!

[mville]

Re: Which is best OGG converting from FLAC...standard, SSE, SSE3?

My bottom lines for whatever I choose, though, include...

• Easy to incorporate into good, intuitive software such as DB; I've tried tangling with EAC and Foobar and their a little to involved for my needs
• Good combination of highest "general" quality with smallest size; I like to pack as much onto my phone as possible with minimal sacrifice
• Compatible with different stereo receiver brands, Sonos, and all of the various home server options (Windows, NAS, etc.)

I suggest you first create a lossless format library. e.g. flac.

The advantages of a lossless library are:
1. Future proof.
2. Can be used as the audio library for your windows home server.
3. You can convert to a lossy format for your portable device(s) e.g. mp3 or ogg.

In terms of the lossy format for your portable device(s), I wouldn't get to bogged down with the arguments over audio quality as I assume you will be listening via headphones/earphones.

Personally, I rip CDs to flac for my home server and create an mp3 library for my portable device(s).

[BrodyBoy]

Re: Which is best OGG converting from FLAC...standard, SSE, SSE3?

I probably avoided AAC because of its early association with Apple. Since their early days, I've hated all things Apple/Mac/i-anything; their propensity for painting consumers into a "proprietary corner" just always galled me and they've done it since the beginning. I don't mean to start any debate, it's just how a personally feel about it and will never (if given a choice) own or use anything Apple owned, derived, etc.

Understood. "Association" seems like a rather arbitrary reason to narrow your options, but if that's your choice.....okay.

(FYI: .AAC isn't "Apple owned, derived, etc"....it was developed by Bell Labs, Fraunhofer, Sony, Nokia, and Dolby. Apple, like many other companies, has adopted it as a supported audio format.)

My bottom lines for whatever I choose, though, include...

• Easy to incorporate into good, intuitive software such as DB; I've tried tangling with EAC and Foobar and their a little to involved for my needs
• Good combination of highest "general" quality with smallest size; I like to pack as much onto my phone as possible with minimal sacrifice
• Compatible with different stereo receiver brands, Sonos, and all of the various home server options (Windows, NAS, etc.)

So I don't know, if someone can provide the compelling argument, I suppose I'm open. I just REALLY don't want to have to go through the exercise again. I work quite a bit and travel for business as well. I'd like to find "the" combination of archival and portable formats that become my standard without having to always search around for latest/greatest, etc. For the same reasons, I'm not inclined to be on the cutting or even bleeding edge of betas, etc. I don't have time for re-doing things because bugs haven't been worked out.

A compelling argument for what....? Honestly, I think you've already defined your own solution. You already have a .FLAC library, so you've got lossless versions for home use, as well as archiving. If you need lossy versions for portable devices, and want to fulfill all the "bottom line" requirements you describe above, your two options are .mp3 and .AAC. Those are the mature codecs that enjoy virtually universal device support and compatibility. Second-tier codecs like OGG (which, as suggested in an earlier post, is more of an "evolving" open-source project) simply cannot match that combination of characteristics.

You have said that you want "smaller file sizes." That necessarily means lower bitrates, which means lower quality. Of the two codecs, .AAC has been shown to perform slightly better at low bitrates (say, 128kbps and lower). But...you want to exclude that option. That leaves you with .mp3....the most mature, widely-supported lossy audio codec on the planet. The only remaining decision is what bitrate to use....i.e., the file size/audio quality trade-off you consider acceptable. Only you can make that particular choice. For me, 128kbps and lower are just too audibly inferior for regular use. I personally rip lossy at 320kbps, since I'm not squeezing for every byte of space, but I think high quality VBR (-V 1 to -V 0) or 256kbps CBR are excellent compromises.