Ogg Vorbis plugin for Nero is available now!

I just posted the article Ogg Vorbis plugin for Nero is available now!.

On Oggnet.de we can read that a user has posted a link to the first Ogg Vorbis plugin for Ahead Nero Burning ROM. The plugin 238Kb in size has been developed by someone with the nickname Mausua,…

Read the full article here:  [http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/5502-Ogg-Vorbis-plugin-for-Nero-is-available-now.html](http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/5502-Ogg-Vorbis-plugin-for-Nero-is-available-now.html)

Feel free to add your comments below. 

Please note that the reactions from the complete site will be synched below.

Yeah nice!! btw. mirror: www.hardsite.dk/oggplugin.zip

Uhhhh… I don’t have any ogg files… and don’t desire any. MP3 is the world standard.

Well OGG is an open source format, free from any royalty (for e.g. Thompson asks a royalty for using MP3 in commercial purposes while and this is not good!), it is based on a variable bit rate encoding mode and it’s quality is really superior to MP3 at the same bitrate. So why not to use it in the future? I’ve encoded my music in OGG since the beginning of this year, and I won’t return to MP3 cause OGG is definitely better.

Available in the eDonkey-network: Click when running Edonkey or Emule

Must be a popular plugin for Nero as the author’s site gives “The web site you are trying to access has exceeded its allocated data transfer” Looks like a lot of people were looking for this! At least I will be able to burn Audio CD-RWs with Nero without first using a 3rd party utility to convert them to wave as the majority of my Albums are encoded in OGG. :slight_smile: I use CD-RWs, so I can change the tracks later.

total crap. only 320 kbs. a loss of 180 kbs. at least. then I can just as well use mp3. it’s not about harddisc space, I could just leave the files in wav format and wouldn’t even notice the harddisc loss. why can’t people make 500 kbs? the specifications are there, the harddisc space is there, the bandwidth is there. so why? audiograbber limits ogg, this nero plugin limits it. this programme: http://winlame.sourceforge.net/ allows 500 kbs. so why not audiograbber or this plugin? ridiculous… :r

I only use wma nowadays, i think its better then mp3, smaller or same size and the same or better. the reason im not using ogg is becuase my mp3 player supports wma and mp3, not ogg

Sooner or later there will be players which will support OGG because it has all the best qualities!

I think the best quality of all is acceptance. Right now OGG is missing this, arguably the most important feature as well. As great as everyone seems to say it is, it won’t run on my MP3 player… and that settles that in my book.

I agree with jab1981 regarding hardware support. If portables don’t support it then I certainly won’t be downloading or encoding using this format. It’s nice to see people ignoring the anti open-source antics of fb-. As for WRFan’s opinion that 320 kb/s is insufficient, well, I’m pretty sure we can ignore that as well :slight_smile: If you want to archive your music then use lossless compression.

WRFan, Unless you are archiving audio, then there’s no need to encode at such high bit rates. An audio magazine recently conducted a test where a 24/Bit, 48 KHz wav was compared to a 256 Kb/VBR Mp3. Ten of the world’s top audio critics (audio experts with hearing that used the entire 20-20 spectrum) compared the audio files using $100,000 of high-end gear (the Sennheiser Orpheus headphones alone cost $15,000). None of the listeners could positively identify which track offered better quality. If the world’s audio experts using the world’s best gear couldn’t distinguish any distinctions, what makes you think that you can? I call it the placebo effect (you want it to sound better, so it does). I’ll continue encoding my mp3s in 256 VBR with LAME/EAC until Ogg is completely supported by in-dash car receivers. I think its odd name may hurt its adoption among the masses. :wink:

:slight_smile: http://users.skynet.be/fa108525/ogg.zip :slight_smile: Tnx Mausua

Yes, Yes !! That’s what I’ve been waiting for for a very long time. Now I can finaly use Ogg Vorbis files directly. It is so much better then MP3 (not to mention crapy WMA). Open, free, gapless, better compression, beter acustics model, peeling … And if you wan’t a portable player with support for it check out: Neuros (http://neurosaudio.com/). Ogg Voprbis rules the world!

This version of the plugin is still buggy for me. I’m using Nero and the produced audio tracks are very very noisy compared to the original OGG files. My writer is LiteOn 32x12x40 XS0Z. Maybe I’ll wait for the next plugin version if any.

All I have to say is this: Encode a file using MP3 at 64Kbps and listen to it. It sound like shit and we all know that small file sizes with MP3’s mean shit quality. This is NOT so with OGG. Encode an OGG file at 64kpbs. You get a 1.7Mb file that can hardly be distinguished from the WAV. Thats on Klipsh 5.1 speakers from an Audigy 2 card. If there was an error I’d hear it. OGG will be the standard. It just takes time. The only thing that I can see beating it is a loss-less encoder that can produce the same or similar file sizes. My 2 cents…

Frankly anyone using over 256 Kb/s in CBR or VBR mode is either encoding particularly difficult material (psychoacousticaly) or is a complete moron. Additionaly, anything over 320 KB/s MP3 files can not be garunteed to play in all software let alone hardware due it being non ISO standard. Ogg is transparent (as in indistinguishable from the orignal) at about -q6 (192 Kb/s. This can still sometimes create files with a 256 KB/s > average on some sounds.) MP3 will reach transparency at a similiar bit rate (e.g. --alt-preset-extreme.) Ogg tends to side with better quality, which is what causes it to create larger files at times. A Ogg capable hardware player will be out by the end of May. To be honest it appears few if any of you know much about lossless, or lossy audio encoding. I suggest you browse the forums at http://www.hydrogenaudio.org

Thats good. The new eazy cd 6.0 comes with ogg support already. Have not totally tested it yet but I have burnt some to a cdr converting on the fly and it worked good. Nero need to make an official plug in

Neil, look. I’m not getting into this debate over bitrates. And I agree that he’s going a bit over board. But you can’t tell people there opinions are wrong, and justify it the way you have. It doesn’t matter how many “Audio Experts” gathered and listened to music on there “$100,000” high-end equipment. I’ll encode at whatever level I feel is justified. I’m sure you buy into these “tests” but I don’t believe everything I read. Hell if they released the same test saying 9 out of 10 “Audio Experts” couldn’t hear the difference between a 64kbps mp3 and a 256kbps on their fancy hook-ups, would you suddenly switch to 64kbps? Of course not (I hope). What it comes down to is personal opinion, and no amount of “Audio Experts” or fancy equipment can win that argument. I agree the gent is going a bit overboard, but it’s his right to feel that way and have that opinion. Don’t try to bash him. Maybe it makes him feel better to have extraordinarily high bitrates in the same way it makes you feel confident to rip mp3’s with all your “audio experts” and their fancy equipment releasing studies.

The human ear can’t tell the difference above 192 kbs. The human ear has a limit of 20,000 Hz - which is what 192kbs is. So why encode past that in the first place?