EcoQuest MP3 / OGG?

[gortmertl0]

Tom,

Listening to the terrific EcoQuest soundtrack (yet again -- almost makes me want to buy the game!), and was wondering if the last three MP3 tracks on the download page will be getting the OGG-treatment?

Not that there's a problem with the MP3s at all, just curious.

Thanks!

Gary

[Ari]

Converting from MP3 to Ogg Vorbis directly can be done quite easily and for free with any number of utilities. Here are some links I got from a search on Google.

It's usually the other way around that might cause a problem.

[Tom]

I'll be updating those files, too, with all high-end Oggs.  I've been starting to update the older digital files, so I'll get to it...just don't have a target date yet. 

[gortmertl0]

I'll be updating those files, too, with all high-end Oggs.  I've been starting to update the older digital files, so I'll get to it...just don't have a target date yet. 

Thank you both for the replies.

Since most of the other files were coverted to OGGs, I thought perhaps there was a reason for those three not to be converted -- files were lost, poor condition of files, unhappy with the conversion results, etc.

It's good to know that updates are forthcoming, and they will be much appreciated.   

[Alistair]

There's a few tracks like that, and since those guys didn't give a reason, here's why:
Basically, Tom sporadically uploaded bits and pieces of his soundtrack CD's around 2000-1. Those 3 MP3 files were part of the tracks (Tom didn't use OGG Vorbis then).

So, when he uploaded the full CD in January 2003, he never uploaded them for time and server space reasons (also he was pretty busy back then).


Either way, a couple other points should be made,
Firstly, the quality isn't an issue because they're encoded in VBR MP3. The soundtrack CD tracks Tom extracted generally were in VBR MP3 format, because he wanted to showcase his tracks.


Secondly, discount Ari's post! Terrible idea. Converting from one lossy format to another is not only a bad idea, it's also a complete sham. All such 'convertors' do is convert the files to WAV and then to the format, regardless of whather it's a 'MP3 to OGG' convertor, a 'OGG to MP3' convertor, or whatever.

Especially given that presumably Gary's asking for the OGG files so they'd be of nice quality. Ironically the MP3 files are probably of higher quality than the OGG files, if Tom had uploaded them, would be. Also could be a reason he didn't.

I'm in 2 minds about the reuploads, because although of course I want them, they'll take up mroe space on my hard disk and I'll have to reburn everythng!

- Alistair

[Tom]

I've already re-encoded all the EcoQuest 1 WAV's to Ogg Vorbis VBR 7.0 files and am in the process of updating the web page.  I'm working this weekend, so I won't have the new files uploaded for another day or two.  This is another soundtrack that I'd really like to redo, using the 8820 or 8850.  If TIME was only kinder...

[Alistair]

Time's an enemy, all right. If I wasn't so stressed and busy I'd have finished Incredible Machine, Kyrandia, Silpheed.. Sigh.

- Alistair

[Ari]

Secondly, discount Ari's post! Terrible idea. Converting from one lossy format to another is not only a bad idea, it's also a complete sham. All such 'convertors' do is convert the files to WAV and then to the format, regardless of whather it's a 'MP3 to OGG' convertor, a 'OGG to MP3' convertor, or whatever.

Are you sure about that? I'm not entirely sure that's correct. I'll look for more info on this.

[Alistair]

Ari,

As far as I can figure, it's scientifically impossible to 'convert' one lossy format to another.

Or if it is, let's assume it is, I can't see how it could be a desirable result.

Think doing the same with picture files- converting JPG or PNG files (which are 'lossy' picture formats) to a lower quality format, GIF or whatever.

Either way, I don't think converting MP3 to OGG files, even if possible, would be a good solution. I'm willing to bet it'd be a MP3->WAV->OGG deal.

- Alistair

[Tom]

The results would depend on the quality of the original compressed file.  You could take one of these PQ3 Oggs, and convert it to a minimally compressed MP3, and not hear the difference.  There would be, of course, a difference, since you'll be losing more file data during the re-compression.  If you started with a 110 kbps Ogg -- converting to a 128 kbps MP3, I'm sure you WOULD hear the difference.

Some of the older digital soundtracks I have curently have posted are in low bitrates, so they're not good candidates for recompressing to MP3.  That's why I'm trying to replace them with high-quality Oggs.  The standard compression used for MP3's is STILL 128 kbps, which even to my old ears, is substandard and noticeable.  (128 kbps MP3 is roughly equivalent to 110 kbps OGG.)

[Ari]

Ari,

As far as I can figure, it's scientifically impossible to 'convert' one lossy format to another.

Or if it is, let's assume it is, I can't see how it could be a desirable result.

Think doing the same with picture files- converting JPG or PNG files (which are 'lossy' picture formats) to a lower quality format, GIF or whatever.
ty
Either way, I don't think converting MP3 to OGG files, even if possible, would be a good solution. I'm willing to bet it'd be a MP3->WAV->OGG deal.

- Alistair

I fully agree that converting from a poor quality MP3 to Ogg would be pointless and foolish, but if we're talking about a high quality mp3s, I see no reason why there should be any noticeable loss of quality assuming you convert to a similar quality (not the same bitrate). Furthermore, converting from 128kbps mp3 to 128kbps Ogg should maintain the same quality, seeing how the latter has better quality at the same bitrate.

Also, are you still positive that the conversion is done by reverting back to WAV format and converting to compressed format again? I don't think that's correct.

[Alistair]

Tom: We're talking about the exact opposite

My vision for SMC, incidentally, when I start posting CD's it to have a "MP3 Player friendly" version, so people don't do silly things like convert OGG->WAV->MP3, which would be worse than if I made good quality MP3's myself.

I fully agree that converting from a poor quality MP3 to Ogg would be pointless and foolish, but if we're talking about a high quality mp3s, I see no reason why there should be any noticeable loss of quality assuming you convert to a similar quality (not the same bitrate). Furthermore, converting from 128kbps mp3 to 128kbps Ogg should maintain the same quality, seeing how the latter has better quality at the same bitrate.

My point is, you have to assume the process is done by reverting to WAV and reencoding. That make the file more lossy in 2 ways, the decoding and the reencoding, regardless of bitrate used either way.

Also, are you still positive that the conversion is done by reverting back to WAV format and converting to compressed format again? I don't think that's correct.

I'm not 100% positive. I'm just intensely sceptical. That Google search you showed was really, really dodgy and showed few links of benefit.

But anyway. I think if it was a 'genuine' convertor, then internally it would probably perform a similar function to converting to WAV and OGG anyway.

Either way, converting from OGG to MP3 or vice versa, however you do it, is a dumb idea.

Though of course whether we'd hear any difference with higher bitrates is probably a good point. But we're talking theory here, not whether you or I could tell at any given bitrate.

- Alistair

[Ari]

You're not sure that any conversion between MP3 and Ogg or vice versa has to go through some temporary conversion to WAV, but you continue to criticize the technique anyway. Oh well...

I don't see how something can be a dumb idea, if it isn't necessarily a bad idea. If you can't hear any noticeable loss of quality, how is it a dumb idea?

We're not talking theory here, we're talking practical. Naturally, if you have the source, it is preferable to use it and not the compressed file, but since you don't always have it, then if the compressed file is of high enough quality there shouldn't be any problem whatsoever using it as the source instead. That's the whole point.

[Alistair]

You're not sure that any conversion between MP3 and Ogg or vice versa has to go through some temporary conversion to WAV, but you continue to criticize the technique anyway. Oh well...

Because anyway, it's a bad idea, conceptually. That's why. I'm looking at this in a very black and white way- if it leads to a reduction in file quality, I see no reason to even consider it.

As I said, if people need MP3 versions (looking at the OGG->MP3 argument) we (Tom, you and I) should be supplying those in conjunction with the OGG files, say a zipped MP3 download (rather than individual MP3 files).

I don't see how something can be a dumb idea, if it isn't necessarily a bad idea. If you can't hear any noticeable loss of quality, how is it a dumb idea?

Well, I don't see any difference between an idea that is 'dumb' and one that is 'bad', but whatever. I'm a big believer that you shouldn't make assumptions about audio that assume we can't hear quality differences (unless they're an essential one, like that you can't hear the difference between original WAV's and OGG or MP3), because if you do, then you start lowering the bar. I also think such measures are unnecessary- it's plain and simply a bad idea to reconvert any lossy formats.

We're not talking theory here, we're talking practical. Naturally, if you have the source, it is preferable to use it and not the compressed file, but since you don't always have it, then if the compressed file is of high enough quality there shouldn't be any problem whatsoever using it as the source instead. That's the whole point.

Well, both theory and practical are relevant. While I accept that there probably isn't much (noticeable) difference between a given OGG file and the same OGG file converted to WAV and then MP3 (or vice versa), that's still in my view a poor sort of argument. If, thereotically, there is a loss in quality, we should be looking to change the way we do things so that that can't happen, rather than doing what you're doing and justify that quality loss is negligible. All that that argument can do is lead to lower quality and post-justification (like, you using phrases like 'high enough quality'), whereas if you implement measures to stop the quality loss, that can only lead to improved quality and a positive end result.

But we're (I am?) being a bit serious here.


I guess I've never liked arguments that run along the lines of, "we probably can't hear any difference", or "the audio is good enough", etc. To me, it's just as easy to convert audio in a good way as it is a bad one- which is what irks me about people who encode in a format like 128 kbps MP3. It's just laziness, rather than anything else.

I want people to be hearing the files *as close as possible* to how they were recorded originally. That's my goal. That's presumably why Tom's reuploaded his soundtracks as of late.
It's why we use Quality 7 OGG files. It's as close as we can justify without going into overkill (studies on Hydrogen Audio have shown quality 7 OGG is almost identical to original WAV files).

Of coruse, one day when we all have 100 TB hard disks, having original WAV files might not be an issue..

- Alistair

[Ari]

I wasn't implying that that using this technique is the appropriate thing to do when planning on distributing the soundtrack to the masses. This was a suggestion to one person about one or two files that although were of high quality, they were in a format different from the rest of the soundtrack. My claim was that for this particular situation, or similar other ones, this is definitely an option, and not something that's equivalent to selling one's soul to the Devil. It's not a bad idea nor a dumb one in this particular case. It's a practical and good solution for this problem.

If Tom has spare time to re-encode all the original source files, by all means. It's preferable, and better to do it that way. But asking him to do this just because 1 or 2 files are in a different format, and it's displeasing to the eye at worst, is a little too much.

That's why it's not a theoretical issue IMO. I'm not arguing that this technique should be implemented as a rule on this site.

Anyway, I think I've said all I have to say here.

[Alistair]

I think we're arguing at cross purposes, anyway. Besides, I don't agree with your comments that we're only talking about the issue at hand- Eco Quest 1 just got reuploaded, including the MP3 files, so I don't see how you can say you're still talking solely about the Eco Quest issue.

Anyway, I still disagree with what you're saying, but you're right, let's leave it for now.

- Alistair

[Ari]

You might be talking about the idea in general. I, however, clearly stated I was talking about this particular case. The fact that the EQ1 soundtrack has been uploaded again is irrelevant. There's nothing to disagree about here. 

[Alistair]

<shakes head> Let's say no more. You're an intelligent guy and we just talked at cross purposes. No point being childish or churlish, as it were.. Back to Sierra music discussion and production for both of us, I think.

- Alistair