Results 1 to 20 of 20
  1.    #1  
    I just upgraded to the new version and was excited about being able to use wma. I was planning to go from mp3 96k to wma 64k and fit more music on my SD card. Everything worked as promised.

    The problem? Using any codec other than mp3 with pTunes uses too much of the processor in my T600 to allow me to do anything else.

    I use WebViewer to surf the net. With no music playing, it's wicked fast as I learned on this board. Playing mp3 96k slows it down by at least 50%, but because WebViewer's so fast, I can live with that. I'd hoped that my experience with other codecs would be similar, but it's not. I basically have to pause the music to pull in a website. Using anything other than mp3, my phone doesn't even respond to the menus or the power button quickly.

    I did my own codec comparison. I tried mp3 96k, mp3 VBR low, wma 64k and ogg vorbis low. It's a real shame because I found out that, IMO, ogg was clearly (pun intended) the best sounding codec at low bit rates.

    I'm very impressed by the capabilities of pTunes. I don't know if there's anything the folks at NullSoft can do or if I'll have to look forward to a Treo with more horsepower.

    BTW: Thanks to everyone for your contributions to this board. This is my first smartphone and I've had it for about a month and the information I've gotten here has been invaluable.
  2.    #2  
    Oh, BTW, the mp3 and wma files @ 64k both sounded bad, with the mp3 sounding terrible. mp3 VBR low was better, but ogg vorbis low was by far the best.

    Does anybody know of any other media players I could try for the T600 that play ogg? The sound vs space ratio is incredible.
  3. #3  
    Aeroplayer, MMPlayer, and RealOne are the only other options AFAIKAFAIKAFAIK.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  4. #4  
    Quote Originally Posted by k1davis
    Oh, BTW, the mp3 and wma files @ 64k both sounded bad, with the mp3 sounding terrible. mp3 VBR low was better, but ogg vorbis low was by far the best.

    Does anybody know of any other media players I could try for the T600 that play ogg? The sound vs space ratio is incredible.
    Nobody I know burns mp3's less than 128k bitrate; which is considered near cd quality.

    The player is not your problem your your bitrate is to low.
  5.    #5  
    Thx for the feedback. I've got trial versions of Aeroplayer & MMPlayer on my phone right now along with pTunes 3.0. It's easy to see why pTunes is so popular. It's easily the most polished of the programs and makes good use of the T600's interface. And actually, it seems that pTunes gives the best performance (uses the least system resources) of the three programs while playing OGG files. The other two programs are even slower.

    I'd hoped to be able to use OGG Vorbis exclusively because, to me, it sounds so much better than the other options, but as far as I can tell, I have to compromise. OGG spoiled me with it's small files and great sound, but using it basically prevents me from using the other capabilities of my T600.

    Quote Originally Posted by dlbrummels
    Nobody I know burns mp3's less than 128k bitrate; which is considered near cd quality.

    The player is not your problem your your bitrate is to low.
    I generally agree with you about about bitrates. I've got thousands of tracks encoded with WMA Lossless on my system at home, but it takes up to 400MB for a single CD. For the PDA, trying to balance sound quality, file size and (T600) system performance is the name of the game IMHO.

    MP3 96 sounds far better than I expected using headphones at least) and if you haven't heard how good OGG Vorbis is at it's smallest setting ("Low") you're in for a surprise.
  6. #6  
    Hello,

    I use PT and Think it's the best of the players. I just started using ogg files and I haven't had any problems. I don't do a lot of websurfing with PT playing, so maybe I will check that. Do you find it slow with other applications? Also, I have most of my mp3 files at 192. I convert them to ogg 96 bitrate and put them on my card to use with PT. What bitrate are your smaller ogg files? Have you compared them to the 96 ogg?

    James
  7. #7  
    Quote Originally Posted by dlbrummels
    Nobody I know burns mp3's less than 128k bitrate; which is considered near cd quality.

    The player is not your problem your your bitrate is to low.
    You've never listened to Ogg Vorbis I take it? I rip to Q1 (~80K) and it's more than adequate for portable use (I actually prefer it to 128K MP3s for lots of reasons). Out of curiosity, what processor is in the Treo 600? Aeroplayer on my T|T plays Q1 oggs without any troubles at all. Same on my wife's Zire 71. Those both use 144MHz OMAPs (which is what I thought was in the T600).
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  8. #8  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby
    You've never listened to Ogg Vorbis I take it? I rip to Q1 (~80K) and it's more than adequate for portable use (I actually prefer it to 128K MP3s for lots of reasons). Out of curiosity, what processor is in the Treo 600? Aeroplayer on my T|T plays Q1 oggs without any troubles at all. Same on my wife's Zire 71. Those both use 144MHz OMAPs (which is what I thought was in the T600).
    Th question is that about 99% of the world uses mp3's for music, not that it's the best, but it is standard in almost all devices and players now.

    I don't have the time or the need to change something I am satisfied with.

    Although a new DivX DVD Player for my HDTV monitor is another thing.
  9. flit's Avatar
    Posts
    2 Posts
    #9  
    I also believe that the upgrade price is too high.....That is deterring me from getting the uprgrade I have version 2 deluxe and works fine for me now. The price woud be a better option at around $9.95 maybe.
  10. #10  
    Quote Originally Posted by dlbrummels
    Th question is that about 99% of the world uses mp3's for music, not that it's the best, but it is standard in almost all devices and players now.

    I don't have the time or the need to change something I am satisfied with.
    No one advocated that you change. The OP's question did have to do with Ogg Vorbis performance, though. You assumed bitrate was a problem from a position of ignorance (since you admit that you have never heard ogg vorbis). It's not. The OP is using ogg because it gives acceptable sound at a much lower bitrate than mp3 can (with the commensurate file size savings). As far as what 99% of the world uses, what difference does that make in this case? If one rips all their own music from CDs that one owns, why should one be concerned?
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  11. #11  
    I've tried playing 192 Ogg in PT with dismal results. I really couldn't do anything else, and it "skipped" all the time. So it seems that Ogg is much more CPU intensive, or PT is not very good at it, especially at higher bitrates. I have not tried Aero player.
  12. #12  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby
    No one advocated that you change. The OP's question did have to do with Ogg Vorbis performance, though. You assumed bitrate was a problem from a position of ignorance (since you admit that you have never heard ogg vorbis). It's not. The OP is using ogg because it gives acceptable sound at a much lower bitrate than mp3 can (with the commensurate file size savings). As far as what 99% of the world uses, what difference does that make in this case? If one rips all their own music from CDs that one owns, why should one be concerned?
    Incorrect, never make assumptions. MP3's sampled at 128k are the norm. Take a look at Kazzaa, Morpheus, any P2P network !

    If you read anything out of the reply it was that 128k is considered near CD quality as far as mp3's, anything thing else would be your ignorance.
  13. #13  
    Quote Originally Posted by dlbrummels
    Incorrect, never make assumptions.
    I didn't make any assumptions. I read what the guy asked and tried to answer his question. You might want to try that sometime.
    MP3's sampled at 128k are the norm. Take a look at Kazzaa, Morpheus, any P2P network !
    I don't use that sort of software, but again, what difference does that make? The OP didn't ask about pirating music.
    If you read anything out of the reply it was that 128k is considered near CD quality as far as mp3's, anything thing else would be your ignorance.
    Perhaps if you spent more time trying to understand what others are saying rather than assuaging your bruised ego due to an innocent term I used this might be easier? The original question was "[...] ogg vorbis low was by far the best.

    Does anybody know of any other media players I could try for the T600 that play ogg? The sound vs space ratio is incredible."

    IOW, he's ripping his own music. He's not trolling the pirate networks looking to download music (or if he is, it's not germane to the topic at hand). What 99% of the world is doing there is irrelevant to his question. What 'everyone you know' is doing is irrelevant. He likes the sound to space ratio that ogg vorbis gives him. I happen to agree and gave him my experience with software that might fit his needs. I didn't tell him that bitrate was his problem nor encoding format, since neither are his problem. Telling him to switch encoding formats or bitrates is about as productive as telling him to get a better device with more processing power and storage.

    And incidentally k1davis, are you using any sort of equalisation? That's rather processor-intensive and might offer an explanation to your performance issues.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  14. #14  
    If you read anything out of the reply it was that 128k is considered near CD quality as far as mp3's, anything thing else would be your ignorance.
    128kbps is not considered near CD quality, imo. Just too tinny for my tastes.
  15. #15  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby
    I didn't make any assumptions. I read what the guy asked and tried to answer his question. You might want to try that sometime.

    I don't use that sort of software, but again, what difference does that make? The OP didn't ask about pirating music.

    Perhaps if you spent more time trying to understand what others are saying rather than assuaging your bruised ego due to an innocent term I used this might be easier? The original question was "[...] ogg vorbis low was by far the best.

    Does anybody know of any other media players I could try for the T600 that play ogg? The sound vs space ratio is incredible."

    IOW, he's ripping his own music. He's not trolling the pirate networks looking to download music (or if he is, it's not germane to the topic at hand). What 99% of the world is doing there is irrelevant to his question. What 'everyone you know' is doing is irrelevant. He likes the sound to space ratio that ogg vorbis gives him. I happen to agree and gave him my experience with software that might fit his needs. I didn't tell him that bitrate was his problem nor encoding format, since neither are his problem. Telling him to switch encoding formats or bitrates is about as productive as telling him to get a better device with more processing power and storage.

    And incidentally k1davis, are you using any sort of equalisation? That's rather processor-intensive and might offer an explanation to your performance issues.
    I commented on this:

    I did my own codec comparison. I tried mp3 96k, mp3 VBR low, wma 64k and ogg vorbis low. It's a real shame because I found out that, IMO, ogg was clearly (pun intended) the best sounding codec at low bit rates.

    I understand, you need to think before you type.

    The comment was: "128k is standard for quality/versus size for mp3, 96k isn't all that great".

    Nothing was stated about pirating. This was yet another assumption made by someone who doesn't think, but simply reacts.

    The Kazza, Morpheus, Napster, and other P2P networking example was to show what is now considered standard, used by 100s of millions.

    Don't read into what isn't said.


  16. #16  
    Quote Originally Posted by dlbrummels
    I understand, you need to think before you type.
    I'm not so sure.
    The comment was: "128k is standard for quality/versus size for mp3, 96k isn't all that great".
    No, your comment was "Nobody I know burns mp3's less than 128k bitrate; which is considered near cd quality.

    The player is not your problem your your bitrate is to low."
    Ignoring that 128k is not really near CD quality (LAME -APS is considered transparent), CD quality is not what the point of the original poster was. His goal was acceptable quality at low bitrates since he was looking to optimise space. Now, even giving you that what you typed was intended to mean what you now say your comment was supposed to mean (which is a bit of a stretch considering that it would require a lot of the assumptions you decry), it still doesn't answer the question.
    Nothing was stated about pirating.
    Ah yes, Kazaa, Morpheus, and other P2P networks exist only for legitimate purposes. Forgive me.
    This was yet another assumption made by someone who doesn't think, but simply reacts.
    Pot, meet kettle.
    The Kazza, Morpheus, Napster, and other P2P networking example was to show what is now considered standard, used by 100s of millions.
    First of all, Napster really isn't P2P anymore. It's a legitimate arm of Roxio now. Second of all, the point is still moot. You can provide signed affidavits from the Thompson group that 128Kbps MP3 is 'the standard', and it still ignores the original question. The OP mentioned low bitrate testing as back story. He _knew_ his bitrates were low. He had already settled on the low bitrate encoding which sounded the best to him (and saved him about 50% of the space as your 'helpful' suggestion), and he was looking for help in finding something which utilised it.
    Don't read into what isn't said.
    I didn't. That seems to be the problem. You never said what you claim to have implied until the post to which I'm replying.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  17. #17  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby
    I'm not so sure.

    No, your comment was "Nobody I know burns mp3's less than 128k bitrate; which is considered near cd quality.

    The player is not your problem your your bitrate is to low."
    Ignoring that 128k is not really near CD quality (LAME -APS is considered transparent), CD quality is not what the point of the original poster was. His goal was acceptable quality at low bitrates since he was looking to optimise space. Now, even giving you that what you typed was intended to mean what you now say your comment was supposed to mean (which is a bit of a stretch considering that it would require a lot of the assumptions you decry), it still doesn't answer the question.

    Ah yes, Kazaa, Morpheus, and other P2P networks exist only for legitimate purposes. Forgive me.

    Pot, meet kettle.

    First of all, Napster really isn't P2P anymore. It's a legitimate arm of Roxio now. Second of all, the point is still moot. You can provide signed affidavits from the Thompson group that 128Kbps MP3 is 'the standard', and it still ignores the original question. The OP mentioned low bitrate testing as back story. He _knew_ his bitrates were low. He had already settled on the low bitrate encoding which sounded the best to him (and saved him about 50% of the space as your 'helpful' suggestion), and he was looking for help in finding something which utilised it.

    I didn't. That seems to be the problem. You never said what you claim to have implied until the post to which I'm replying.
    First, I responded to him, not to you.

    Nobody I know burns less than 128k on mp3's.

    The player is not the problem it is the sampled rate, a 96K burn of mp3 is noticeably bad, played through any player it is noticeably so.

    All encoding is not created equal, there are always be a trade-off.

    But you still read into it what you want, I referred to P2P as a reference as to what is considered standard, period. Once again your mind goes to wandering.

    Your trivial pursuit at few general facts, in no way makes up for your lack of ability to comprehend even the smallest thought, or inability to spell at an elementary school level
  18. #18  
    Quote Originally Posted by dlbrummels
    First, I responded to him, not to you.
    Yes, and judging by his response to that response, he also felt you were barking up the wrong tree as well.
    Nobody I know burns less than 128k on mp3's.
    Yes, we've established that. It was never in question.
    The player is not the problem it is the sampled rate, a 96K burn of mp3 is noticeably bad, played through any player it is noticeably so.
    Again, you miss the point. He's not looking for a player that will make 96Kbps MP3s sound better. He acknowledged that 96Kbps MP3s don't sound that good compared to higher bitrate MP3s. Catch is that Ogg Vorbis at those bitrates (and slightly lower) sound quite acceptable _and_ save on file size.
    All encoding is not created equal, there are always be a trade-off.
    This wasn't ever in debate. AAMOF, it was the whole point of the original topic. He's encoding at lower bitrates to gain an increase in the amount of music he can carry. By doing so with Ogg Vorbis, he sacrifices significantly less quality than with lower bitrate MP3 _and_ he can carry more music. At ogg Q1, one can carry 8-10 CDs worth of acceptable quality music on a 256MB SD card with space left over to store programs, pictures, etc. At 128Kbps MP3, you get half that at equal (or even worse on some things to my ear) quality. The OP feels that this is the trade-off he'd like to make. Considering that the first PalmOS 5 players (Aeroplayer and Pocket Tunes) used Ogg Vorbis as their primary codec, this doesn't seem that unreasonable.
    But you still read into it what you want, I referred to P2P as a reference as to what is considered standard, period.
    I'm not reading anything into it. That's the point. Your statement was answering a question that was never asked at best.
    Once again your mind goes to wandering.
    If you'd actually read and comprehend what I'm writing, you'd see that my mind is trying to keep the discussion on track to _answering_the_original_poster's_question_.
    Your trivial pursuit at few general facts, in no way makes up for your lack of ability to comprehend even the smallest thought, or inability to spell at an elementary school level
    Your ad hominems really don't serve to bring this discussion in a positive direction. I must admit that I'm curious as to which misspellings you're referring to, though? The closest I can figure is that you're referring to my lapse into the Brit use of 'ise' instead of the American 'ize'.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  19. #19  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby
    Yes, and judging by his response to that response, he also felt you were barking up the wrong tree as well.

    Yes, we've established that. It was never in question.

    Again, you miss the point. He's not looking for a player that will make 96Kbps MP3s sound better. He acknowledged that 96Kbps MP3s don't sound that good compared to higher bitrate MP3s. Catch is that Ogg Vorbis at those bitrates (and slightly lower) sound quite acceptable _and_ save on file size.

    This wasn't ever in debate. AAMOF, it was the whole point of the original topic. He's encoding at lower bitrates to gain an increase in the amount of music he can carry. By doing so with Ogg Vorbis, he sacrifices significantly less quality than with lower bitrate MP3 _and_ he can carry more music. At ogg Q1, one can carry 8-10 CDs worth of acceptable quality music on a 256MB SD card with space left over to store programs, pictures, etc. At 128Kbps MP3, you get half that at equal (or even worse on some things to my ear) quality. The OP feels that this is the trade-off he'd like to make. Considering that the first PalmOS 5 players (Aeroplayer and Pocket Tunes) used Ogg Vorbis as their primary codec, this doesn't seem that unreasonable.

    I'm not reading anything into it. That's the point. Your statement was answering a question that was never asked at best.

    If you'd actually read and comprehend what I'm writing, you'd see that my mind is trying to keep the discussion on track to _answering_the_original_poster's_question_.

    Your ad hominems really don't serve to bring this discussion in a positive direction. I must admit that I'm curious as to which misspellings you're referring to, though? The closest I can figure is that you're referring to my lapse into the Brit use of 'ise' instead of the American 'ize'.
    What, I responded to.

    Originally Posted by k1davis
    Oh, BTW, the mp3 and wma files @ 64k both sounded bad, with the mp3 sounding terrible. mp3 VBR low was better, but ogg vorbis low was by far the best.

    Does anybody know of any other media players I could try for the T600 that play ogg? The sound vs space ratio is incredible

    The point is Pocket Tunes is a fine Palm player, the encode is the problem, garbage in, equals garbage out, no player can fix a bad source, 96k mp3's sound bad. It is a trade off using Ogg Vorbis because the Arm processor is bogged down more by Ogg Vorbis than MP3, so it is a matter of what you are willing to trade off, space/sound quality/processor speed/mult-tasking etc.


    Your ad hominems really don't serve to bring this discussion in a positive direction


    Don't use words you can not spell.......................End of discussion
  20. #20  
    Quote Originally Posted by dlbrummels
    What, I responded to.
    'What you responded to' seems to keep changing.
    The point is Pocket Tunes is a fine Palm player,
    No one ever said that Pocket Tunes was a bad player. I've tried it myself a few times. I find Aeroplayer to have been more to my liking (although I use my Rio Karma lately more than any PalmOS player), but lately Pocket Tunes seems to certainly be eclipsing it in capabilities (although a new Aeroplayer version is imminent which may or may not change that).
    the encode is the problem, garbage in, equals garbage out, no player can fix a bad source, 96k mp3's sound bad.
    Do please try and break out of this rut. That's still not the heart of the matter.
    It is a trade off using Ogg Vorbis because the Arm processor is bogged down more by Ogg Vorbis than MP3, so it is a matter of what you are willing to trade off, space/sound quality/processor speed/mult-tasking etc.
    Finally, we may be getting somewhere. Catch is that it's the trade off that the OP was searching for. Yes, Ogg Vorbis does require more horsepower than MP3 to decode, but it is not beyond the capabilities of the 144MHz OMAP in either the Tungsten|T nor the Zire71. Do you know which one's in the T600?
    Don't use words you can not spell.......................End of discussion
    Oh, please. This is ad hominem in itself, and quite hypocritical at that.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...

Posting Permissions