Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Source Gear › Is Ogg Vorbis dying?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Is Ogg Vorbis dying? - Page 2

post #16 of 37
Also keep in mind newer than MP3 codecs (Vorbis, AAC versions, ATRAC versions, etc.) are aiming at 'similar quality at smaller sizes' not 'better quality at the highest bitrates'. Now that should be that the case all the way up the ladder (the 'tuned for ~128'/'sweet spot' discussions are supposedly false), but at the top ends 256+, there's been very little tests. So though it's likely that's the case, it's probably best to be careful when saying "Ogg sounds better" unless you've compared 320 kpbs files (Vorbis obviously goes even higher, though I don't know why anyone would use 500 kbps lossy).

Also of note, is a recent HA test (and discussion) over Ogg Vorbis underperforming specifically on a selection of Classical tracks. Something to consider depending on collection and how much faith you put on the test.
post #17 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by unitnumber43
Was Ogg ever really alive? It's certainly not common place. I've never seen an Ogg file on someone elses computer. Pretty much the only people that use it are audiophiles or computer tech's.
Exactly. Most people who buy DAPs are casual listeners. Example. I have my new Sony HD3 player with me @ college. Whats that? I'm asked. Music player. Huh? Sony version of Ipod. Oh.
post #18 of 37

 

shame it never really took off.  I just did an ABX today and for the same 256kb bitrate the .ogg file is much smoother/less grainy sounding than the mp3 (no idea which mp3 encoder to be honest though).  

I guess the compression advantage is no longer so important as before, and the increased battery usage really held it back in portable devices.

post #19 of 37

I use ogg. I can rip audio books in low bit rate and it retains a high level of sound quality which at the same bit rate, mp3 simply cannot. The ogg format performs far better than the overrated mp3 format.

post #20 of 37

II mostly listen to Ogg Vorbis myself. 320kbps files that is - through Spotify.
Sound pretty good to my ears, although I would have preferred a lossless codec instead. 

post #21 of 37

"I really like Ogg Vorbis for the file size savings - anywhere from 10% to 30%. That can make a big difference with flash players. On the other hand, I don't want to have regrets later if I have to buy a new player one day and find nobody supports Ogg (or only players that I don't want do)."

 

Listening tests indicate there are no major differences between mp3, Ogg, and AAC.

 

I don't think Vorbis is dying it's just not catching on. I like the Vorbis codec but I can't be bothered to use it when mp3 sounds just as good. (LAME)

 

drez, please don't say Ogg sounds less grainy if your not even using LAME.


Edited by Satellite_6 - 10/2/10 at 7:36am
post #22 of 37

Very wise advice from a very wise HF'er. The only thing I'd like to point out is that MP3, while standardised in 1992-3, is as old, but primarily much newer as a 'standard' than ATRAC is. ATRAC was popular back in 1994 and gained massive use till about 2000 when MP3 started to wild with file sharing. ATRAC, of course, has never been made to sound like the source material, but been compressed in a way to make it 'sound better' than the source by compressing certain models to make the bass and high mids stand out in more exciting ways. 

 

The others tend to be made to emulate the source as closely as possible, but of course are not perfect. In the early days, as you (did I read between the lines correctly?) seem to suggest, OGG was ahead, but today, there is no clear winner at 128 and at higher rates (which aren't tested as often), the winner seems to be harder to parse.

 

Here, golden-eared listeners chime in all the time about how much better lossless is than lossy, how much better OGG vorbis is than MP3, etc. and so on till they've spittle-coated their keyboards. But I've met no one here actually doing tests of the files in controlled environments with volume-matched, blind, multi-song tests. 

 

Of course, that shouldn't matter to anyone - how you enjoy your music should be your issue only. The problem is when (and I've seen this even from the mods here) you get offended and attack other people for using codec you don't agree with or that you think are crap. Mods especially should watch out for this as it is brutal to see them attack users for using 128kbps files. 

 

Today, I pretty much stick with LAME though I would like to see AAC officially take its intended spot as the successor to MP3, but I don't think that will ever happen.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by blessingx View Post

Also keep in mind newer than MP3 codecs (Vorbis, AAC versions, ATRAC versions, etc.) are aiming at 'similar quality at smaller sizes' not 'better quality at the highest bitrates'. Now that should be that the case all the way up the ladder (the 'tuned for ~128'/'sweet spot' discussions are supposedly false), but at the top ends 256+, there's been very little tests. So though it's likely that's the case, it's probably best to be careful when saying "Ogg sounds better" unless you've compared 320 kpbs files (Vorbis obviously goes even higher, though I don't know why anyone would use 500 kbps lossy).

Also of note, is a recent HA test (and discussion) over Ogg Vorbis underperforming specifically on a selection of Classical tracks. Something to consider depending on collection and how much faith you put on the test.
post #23 of 37

"Also of note, is a recent HA test (and discussion) over Ogg Vorbis underperforming specifically on a selection of Classical tracks."

 

Classical or music involving pianos, violins, etc. do sound really nice with Vorbis IMO, one of the reasons I really like it. Lossy formats don't vary much but I do think that lossy doesn't compare to lossless. . . this opinion is based on ABX tests I've done in the past. . . .

post #24 of 37

reason I don't know whether lame was used is because I did not do the recordings myself.  If I had time or inclination to rip same recordings with EAC LAME and Vorbis I would, but to be honest its probably really not worth my time as lack storage limitations means I can use lossless for all my CD ripping.  

 

I just thought that having acquired a recording in both formats, it might be worth reviving this thread.  No need to be an elitist nerd about it.


Edited by drez - 10/6/10 at 10:10pm
post #25 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundbuff View Post

I heard the Iriver has discontinued Ogg Vorbis on one of their new HDD models..

What do you think, is Ogg Vorbis going the way of the dinosaurs?

I am trying to decide between ripping my collection in Ogg Vorbis or MP3. I can't hear much of a difference between Ogg Vorbis Q6 and MP3/Lame alt-preset standard (sometimes I think MP3 sounds a little more transparent, but it might just be a mood thing that varies from day to day).

I really like Ogg Vorbis for the file size savings - anywhere from 10% to 30%. That can make a big difference with flash players. On the other hand, I don't want to have regrets later if I have to buy a new player one day and find nobody supports Ogg (or only players that I don't want do).

What do you think? Is it safe to rip with Ogg and still have future support?


You shuld try AAC, it is a modern wide-supported codec, better than MP3.

post #26 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJGeorgeT View Post

I use ogg. I can rip audio books in low bit rate and it retains a high level of sound quality which at the same bit rate, mp3 simply cannot.


 

I agree. At the same bit rates, ogg files are smaller than mp3 files and I don't think ogg is dying. Lately I see more people using ogg/vorbis format (not a lot of people, but more than before.) and cowons, sansdisk, samsungs and other players support ogg format.

 

In my testings with a standar album rip (13 total songs):

 

AAC album rip (~190kbps) = 78,8 mb
OGG album rip (~192kbps) = 66,1 mb

I stick with ogg. Better quality/smaller file size at those rates (and it's patent-free, of course.)

post #27 of 37

Vorbis isn't going anywhere, it has a definitive place and won't be supplanted by a patent-encumbered codec, there are at least hundreds of shipping games whose music libraries and sound banks are encoded in Vorbis. Personally, most of the files in my portable setup are in Vorbis.

post #28 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kerberos View Post




 

I agree. At the same bit rates, ogg files are smaller than mp3 files and I don't think ogg is dying. Lately I see more people using ogg/vorbis format (not a lot of people, but more than before.) and cowons, sansdisk, samsungs and other players support ogg format.

 

In my testings with a standar album rip (13 total songs):

 

AAC album rip (~190kbps) = 78,8 mb
OGG album rip (~192kbps) = 66,1 mb

I stick with ogg. Better quality/smaller file size at those rates (and it's patent-free, of course.)



20% difference means that you'e done your comparison in a wrong way. Either you've mistyped when selecting bitrate for one of those rips or your rip software e.g. embedded 1 megabyte album art into all 13 AAC tracks. There is no way for mpeg-4 container to have 20% overhead on such bitrates.

post #29 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by penartur View Post





20% difference means that you'e done your comparison in a wrong way. Either you've mistyped when selecting bitrate for one of those rips or your rip software e.g. embedded 1 megabyte album art into all 13 AAC tracks. There is no way for mpeg-4 container to have 20% overhead on such bitrates.



You're right, I mistyped the ogg bitrate (175kbps). But even so, ogg-vorbis still gives me 73mb at 192kbps q6.0 vs 78mb with AAC (abr and vbr) at the same bitrate. That saved storage space is valuable for my portable setup (and my entire music library wink.gif).


Edited by Kerberos - 10/7/10 at 9:03pm
post #30 of 37
Originally Posted by Kerberos View Post

I agree. At the same bit rates, ogg files are smaller than mp3 files and I don't think ogg is dying. Lately I see more people using ogg/vorbis format (not a lot of people, but more than before.) and cowons, sansdisk, samsungs and other players support ogg format.

 

In my testings with a standar album rip (13 total songs):

 

AAC album rip (~190kbps) = 78,8 mb
OGG album rip (~192kbps) = 66,1 mb

I stick with ogg. Better quality/smaller file size at those rates (and it's patent-free, of course.)

 

Well, that is totally impossible!

As bitrate is in direct link to file size. At the same bitrate the file will be the same size, give or take a few kb to cover differences in container formats and metadata.

 

192kbps / 8 = 24 kBps

24kBps x 60 (seconds) = 1440kBps or 1.4 megaByte per minute, regardless if it encoded to MP3, AAC, Vorbis, ...

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Portable Source Gear
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Source Gear › Is Ogg Vorbis dying?