[penartur]

Quote:

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

).

I'm not into all this vorbis stuff, but "q6.0" sounds like VBR, so, again, this is not 192kbps. The same thing goes for AAC.
5MB/7% is still a huge and impossible difference. There is some overhead of MPEG-4 container, but it is certainly not that large (and OGG container also has some overhead).

 

[zest]

OGG is known for having better compression for the same SQ compared to MP3, I confirm it's VBR and q6 is around 192kbps.
 
zest@linuxette:~/tmp$ cdparanoia -vqs 6 - | oggenc -q 6 - -o track6.ogg
Opening with wav module: WAV file reader
Encoding standard input to
         "track6.ogg"
at quality 6.00
    [ 99.9%] [ 0m00s remaining] /

Done encoding file "track6.ogg"

    File length:  5m 30.0s
    Elapsed time: 1m 44.3s
    Rate:         3.1669
    Average bitrate: 191.8 kb/s

 

[shigzeo]

That 'known' statement hasn't been true in years. In low kbps files, that may be so, but otherwise, it simply isn't proven in any public tests anywhere.
 
Quote:

OGG is known for having better compression for the same SQ compared to MP3, I confirm it's VBR and q6 is around 192kbps.
 
zest@linuxette:~/tmp$ cdparanoia -vqs 6 - | oggenc -q 6 - -o track6.ogg
Opening with wav module: WAV file reader
Encoding standard input to
         "track6.ogg"
at quality 6.00
    [ 99.9%] [ 0m00s remaining] /

Done encoding file "track6.ogg"

    File length:  5m 30.0s
    Elapsed time: 1m 44.3s
    Rate:         3.1669
    Average bitrate: 191.8 kb/s

 

[stevenswall]

Ogg Vorbis has a place for me... I use it on my DAP for audio books. I turn it down to the lowest VBR setting possible for maximum compreeions and space saving. It is still standable, and speech is intelligible. It seems like when I do this with MP3 is downsamples right away, cutting some of the higher frequencies, and altering the sound. I thing OGG is superior because it compresses better, and that becomes even more noticable at lower bitrates when it does not have to downsample so far.
 
OGG: 32kbps 44.1khz
MP3: 32kbps 22khz

 

[zest]

Quote:

That 'known' statement hasn't been true in years. In low kbps files, that may be so, but otherwise, it simply isn't proven in any public tests anywhere.
 

 

When it's a question of sound, it's always subjective, but I suppose it's easier to find differences with low bitrates. People from hydrogenaudio did a test some years ago.
 
The methodology and results.

 

[semicoln]

Necro time. Do we have a verdict? I archive in FLAC and would like to convert for my PMP using an open, patent free format on principle. It would give me the warm fuzzys. Is there a point in usin Ogg now or should I just jump into the inevitable project of converting to MP3 lame V0?

 

[julian67]

If your hardware supports Ogg Vorbis then I'd go with that over mp3.

Reasons:

Ogg Vorbis -q 6 or 7 should be as good as lame -V 0 in practise so you can have slightly smaller files.

Really simple tagging, identical to flac. No silly restrictions on custom fields or genres.

Native gapless. It's not a workaround, it just works as expected.

Very simple command line encoder. That might not matter to many but it can make life super simple with commands, scripts or apps that call a command line encoder. It's very neat the way it works with flac to copy all the metadata automatically without needing another tool. For example the command 'oggenc -q 7 *.flac' creates high quality oggs from all flacs in the directory and all the tags are copied too.

Replay gain always works on the tags, never by changing the audio (replaygain on mp3 can do either).

Disadvantage: embedded cover art not officially supported, there are a couple of different ways it can be done and different players can choke on either or both.

Both mp3 and ogg are old codecs now and can both run into problems with some samples. aac probably is a better choice for high quality, low file size and lower chance of encountering a sample that defeats its psychoacoustic model. If your hardware supports gapless m4a then you might be better off with aac than any other lossy codec. Apple, Fraunhofer and Nero are all good aac encoders, and in that order (see Hydrogen Audio for confirmation by listening tests) so you can use iTunes or Winamp or fdkaac, which covers encoding in Mac, Windows and Linux/BSD (and Android) nicely.

The above isn't comprehensive, just some thoughts, and I might have failed to think of something significant.

But if you have plenty of storage on your player why not just use flac? I saved 100s of GB storage on my PC and backups by only using flac where possible (no longer keep a mirrored lossy version of my rips).