PDA

View Full Version : Play oggs outside of winamp and ut?


Alhanalem
12th Aug 2003, 08:46 AM
any way i can play oggs outside of winamp and ut?

Mychaeel
12th Aug 2003, 10:05 AM
http://www.vorbis.com/software.psp

Winamp strikes me as the most convenient choice though if you have it installed already...

Alhanalem
12th Aug 2003, 02:26 PM
no, i uninstalled it- i really dont like it.

Mychaeel
12th Aug 2003, 06:39 PM
I've never tried Winamp 3 since I heard it's a monster---looking great and everything, but at the expense of using about ten times as many processor resources as Winamp 2 did.

So I'm still happily stuck with Winamp 2.7. It does everything I expect from an audio player (it plays audio) and does it nicely and unobtrusively even in background if it need be, using less than one percent of processor resources in average rather than twenty or thirty, and supports any audio format I ever wanted to play (including Ogg Vorbis).

There must be a reason Winamp 2 is still being developed and available for download even though Winamp 3 has been out for ages...

http://classic.winamp.com

]yS[concrete
12th Aug 2003, 09:07 PM
or you could always open it in soundforge or somethin and save it as another audio type...

just another option...

KrazyK
12th Aug 2003, 09:15 PM
You could try doing a search for .ogg plugins for windows media player(Yuck!).

Alhanalem
12th Aug 2003, 10:42 PM
there isnt a windows codec for it like other audio and video formats?

]yS[concrete
12th Aug 2003, 11:41 PM
it's a relatively uncommon filetype for things like this so it'll probably be hard(er) to find codecs/plugins for it...

Wormbo
13th Aug 2003, 02:44 AM
I'm using Winamp 2.9 which already comes with an OGG plug-in and also OggDS (http://tobias.everwicked.com/oggds.htm) for Windows Media Player because I only use Winamp for playlists. (The actual sound and music files are still opened in WMP 6.4 when I doubleclick them in Exporer.)

skeleton_keys
13th Aug 2003, 03:37 AM
You may want to have a look at this :

http://tucows.easynet.net/preview/285765.html

I cant say how good it is but worth a try. (It does have a good tucows rating so cant be all bad)

I personally use Winamp right now but I do take your point about its downfall.

OGG seems to be gaining in popularity, as earlier this year one of the personal MP3 player models started coming with an OGG player upgrade. I hope this trend continues as the quality/size ratio is better than MP3s.

Mychaeel
13th Aug 2003, 04:21 AM
...and, most importantly, MP3 is proprietary (and thus requires license fees on part of those implementing it) while Ogg Vorbis is not. Somewhat similar as for GIF versus PNG.

skeleton_keys
13th Aug 2003, 04:37 AM
Yep, good point Mychaeel...

I just had a quick play with DDB Player. After 5 minutes of using it here are my thoughts:

Good Points:
1. Less Resource greedy than Winamp (currently running 2.80)
2. MP3s of lower quality sound much better than on Winamp (this could be because my machine is always running some processor intensive stuff and may be hindering Winamp)


Bad Points:
1. No PreAmp settings as in Winamp (always like a good tweak)
2. It is shareware so you will get annoying pop up every five songs unless you register ($12.95)
3. Not as pleasing to the eye (not to mine at least)

I am sure there are other plus/minus points but there is a quick heads up

Mychaeel
13th Aug 2003, 04:53 AM
1. Less Resource greedy than Winamp (currently running 2.80)

Hmm. My Winamp 2.7 uses less than one percent of processor ressources on my Athlon XP 2000+ (currently clocked at 1250 MHz). I don't see how it could get any "less greedy" than that...

2. MP3s of lower quality sound much better than on Winamp (this could be because my machine is always running some processor intensive stuff and may be hindering Winamp)

Maybe Media Player just runs its decoder thread on a higher priority than Winamp does its by default. (You can change that in the decoder's and the output plugin's setup in Winamp, by the way.)

Back when I registered Winamp it was still shareware, by the way... :)

skeleton_keys
13th Aug 2003, 05:15 AM
Yep I already had my Winamp settings changed.
When I am working (like I should be right now :P), I run on a 700MHz laptop so anything mildy intensive does make a difference. And it does seem to with Winamp 2.80

But the bottom line is to try everything out there and see which one suits you the best I guess.

BTW just to clarify I was referring to DBB player rather than media player (which is not one of my favourites it has to be said) Just trying it out at the moment to see if it is worth using it or not.

Oh yeah, Happy Birthday Alfred Hitchcock :)

KrazyK
13th Aug 2003, 12:19 PM
Hmm. My Winamp 2.7 uses less than one percent of processor ressources on my Athlon XP 2000+ (currently clocked at 1250 MHz). I don't see how it could get any "less greedy" than that...

I didn't know you were an underclocker Mych. ;)

KrazyK
13th Aug 2003, 12:27 PM
My experence with media player, especially version 9, is that it seems to be a bit of a hog when it comes to cpu cycles. It also seems sensitive to other things running along with it. Just opening the task manager on windows 2000 made it hiccup, and according to the task manager the media player was only using a max of 7% of my processor. Your best bet is to turn off the visualizations as they are the real resource hog.

Mychaeel
13th Aug 2003, 12:31 PM
I didn't know you were an underclocker Mych. ;)

Yep, I am. Hardcore. You should see my CPU heating system. :p

Seriously though... those are the settings I bought the board and the processor with, and I couldn't be bothered yet to change it since I currently don't have the impression that I could actually benefit from the extra speed; and by rights I shouldn't even be able to run stable with this speed given my current power supply and processor fan (which are dictated by my wish to have a silent computer), but it works and I don't want to push the envelope as long as I'm content with the system's overall speed.

I actually have the distinct impression the RAM upgrade I got with the board had far more positive impact on my system's performance than the processor upgrade...