Welcome! » Log In » Create A New Profile

OGG Vorbis 1.0 Released

Posted by Erukian 
OGG Vorbis 1.0 Released
July 19, 2002 06:26PM
Early this morning Slashdot jumped the gun and announced the release of OGG Vorbis 1.0, letting their swarms of readers to simply overwhelm the servers at xiph.org and vorbis.com before they could setup mirrors. I did happen to get my hands on a copy of it. And yes, it blows WMA and MP3 away. The quality is amazing especially in the low bit rates (45kbps), it works with Coolplayer just fine!
Roj
Re: OGG Vorbis 1.0 Released
July 23, 2002 07:09PM
"And yes, it blows WMA and MP3 away."

WMA? Assuredly. Two tin cans and a piece of string can do that. MP3? Yer on drugs. Try bitrates above 192 and get back to me.



____
Roj

"Faith manages."
- jms
Roj
Re: OGG Vorbis 1.0 Released
July 26, 2002 02:17AM
It may be important on a 56K modem but IMO in today's market if you have a 56K connection, you deserve what happens to you.smiling smiley

You're talking to a guy who pulls down an average of 500Mb of MP3z a day every day over his broadband connection.

192 is my bare minimum.



____
Roj

"Faith manages."
- jms
Re: OGG Vorbis 1.0 Released
July 27, 2002 08:43AM
Yes, vorbis at 192 beats MP3 at 192. Do you think MP3 is perfect at 192? Yer on drugs. But with vorbis, you don't even need 192 kbps to get good quality. Why not take the opportunity to reduce your "bare minimum?"

Of course, judging by your posts, you don't encode anything anyway, so the point is moot.
Re: OGG Vorbis 1.0 Released
July 27, 2002 10:19PM
I'm sorry, but you make absolutely no sense. The fact that you find 192 kbps MP3s adequate for your needs, in no way invalidates Ogg Voribis as a viable codec. It is *better* than MP3, and no arguments that above 192 the difference is neglible is going to change that fact. People are trying to tell you than you can do better than MP3, but you don't want to hear it. You can get smaller files or better quality, but you don't want to hear it. Boggles the mind.

"Junior"? Who's making wild assumtions now?!? I started out in MP3 when the only encoder was l3enc, and the only real player was WinPlay3 (though, instead I used DOS players). On the other hand, I made an educated guess; as you brag about downloading 500 MB of MP3s *a day*, I concluded you buy very little music.

The fact that you've written a simplistic MP3 tutorial means nothing. That you mention it only makes you look arrogant. I have humbly helped the Ogg Vorbis team in whatever ways I can (including coding).
Roj
Re: OGG Vorbis 1.0 Released
July 29, 2002 01:40PM
"I started out in MP3 when the only encoder was l3enc, and the only real player was WinPlay3 (though, instead I used DOS players)."

So we're equal in experience.

Next...

"That you mention it only makes you look arrogant."

Often defined as "the vice of being right".

Next...

"The fact that you find 192 kbps MP3s adequate for your needs, in no way invalidates Ogg Voribis as a viable codec."

Well DUH. Point to where I said it did. I merely said it's not the God's Gift everyone is making it out to be.

Next...

"It is *better* than MP3, and no arguments that above 192 the difference is neglible is going to change that fact. "

Right.

Where's yer proof?

Where's yer decode of an MP3, decode of a Vorbis file and comaprison to the origial Wav souce if Cool Edit 2000 or SoundForge? Put up or shut up.

Next...

"People are trying to tell you than you can do better than MP3, but you don't want to hear it."

MPC and AAC already achieved that a while back.

Next...

"You can get smaller files or better quality, but you don't want to hear it. "

For me the size savings are pretty irrelevant when offset against the audio quality. I'm saying that at lower bitrates, you gain with OGG but those advantages disappear the higher the bitrate. I don't give a ratz ass about lower bitrate since I abandoned them long ago for the trash they were. Hence, if the differences between OGG and MP3 are negligible at 192 and above, it's pretty damned useless to me.

Get it finally?

Maybe when the OGG team developes comparable psychoacoustic refinements that surpass MP3 at those bitrates it will be worthy of my consideration. Until then, it's just a nice work-in-progress (as it has been for the last several years) as far as I'm concerned.



____
Roj

"Faith manages."
- jms
Roj
Re: OGG Vorbis 1.0 Released
July 29, 2002 10:55PM
Try reading again:

"Where's yer decode of an MP3, decode of a Vorbis file and comparison to the origial Wav souce if Cool Edit 2000 or SoundForge? Put up or shut up."

A simple overlay tells wonders.

"It is *really good*."

...but not *good enough*.

"I don't know *where* you get the idea that the MP3 psychoacoustic model is better than that in vorbis."

They guys who did LAME and worked mightily to make it better than even the current FhG "schtuff" (it's nearest competitor).

"MP3 is ancient technology."

And since when is old bad? I don't go jumping on new fads - they have to prove themselves first.

"On top of this, is it encumbered by nasty patents held by greedy companies. "

Yah yah - LAME and MAD got around that a while back. And to suggest that FhG is gonna prosecute mp3 users is only an example of wildest fantasy.

"Add to this the fact that there are some MP3 encoders that sound like crap even at 192, and you've got a mess."

Well DUH. And there are some decoders that are equally hideous. Use LAME and MAD and that problem becomes moot. Why do you think that article was written?

When OGG matures and generates a following it may well supplant MP3. I have long stated that OGG was the likely successor. But it ain't happening today or tomorrow when it comes to that.

You wanna sell snakeoil and say it's superior without running those CoolEdit tests? Go right ahead. I'll wait until the rubber meets the road - I'm no gadfly jumping on the latest and greatest. From what I've heard with my own ears using CoolPlayer, a Turtle Beach Santa Cruz and a set of Monsoon MH-505s, it's a good start but that's all. For the record, this topic was long under discussion over at 3D SoundSurge and I'm not alone in what I heard.



____
Roj

"Faith manages."
- jms
Re: OGG Vorbis 1.0 Released
July 29, 2002 11:32PM
A "simple overlay" doesn't tell anything. Audio encoders work by modeling human ears. Human ears are the only real measure of the quality of a codec. Where's your graphs that show LAME is better than Vorbis? As you would say, "Put up or shut up."

What basis do you use to conclude that Ogg Vorbis is not good enough? It's better than MP3, at least.

Yes, LAME is worlds better than FhG, but it's not better than Vorbis.

You're welcome to stay away from Vorbis as long as you like. Many were waiting for the 1.0 release; go ahead and wait for the 2.0 release if that's better for you. That doesn't make it inferior to MP3.

LAME has not (and will not) escaped the patent issues. From the LAME homepage: "Using the LAME encoding engine (or other mp3 encoding technology) in your software may require a patent license in some countries." Ever noticed that you can't get binaries there?

MAD is a decoder - that's a different story.

People have tried to run these "CoolEdit" tests as you describe them. Point these out to any good audio coder, and tell you why they give you very little information. In fact they cannot be used to compare *good* codecs. They can be used to compare a *good* codec to a *very bad* codec, but that's about it. Do your homework.

Are you saying that you've done blind listening tests and concluded that LAME is better than Ogg Vorbis? If you think you have, take it to the Vorbis developers. I'd love to see it. smiling smiley

What is it on 3D SoundSurge that you wanted me to see?
Roj
Re: OGG Vorbis 1.0 Released
July 30, 2002 07:25PM
"So, you haven't done good listening tests? I have, and I say Vorbis is better. You should do so yourself before you go about renouncing the codec."

Do learn to read. I said I hadn't done any BLIND listening tests. I'm not one of these fools who subscribes to the theory that the only valid listening tests are blind ones. YMMV.

"But you can't claim that LAME has worked around the patent issues, because it hasn't."

I give a ratz azz. It's an encoder. it does good work. If Satan approved it I wouldn't care either.

"Why shouldn't you talk to the developers?"

Because I'm not interested in doing so? Not a big stretch...

"P.S., your attitude needs an adjustment."

I get that on occasion.

Water off a duck's back, particularly considering the sources...



____
Roj

"Faith manages."
- jms
Re: OGG Vorbis 1.0 Released
July 30, 2002 10:31PM
If you don't "subscribe" to blind listening tests, then you're not very scientific. This is accepted practice. Without a good scientific test, it's very difficult to make a conclusion about the quality of a codec and make it stick.

Listen. If you're satisfied with the quality of LAME/MP3, and you're not bothered by the patent issues, then go ahead with what you're doing. I'm not asking you to change that. Do what you like.

Please consider supporting the free tools you use. You must be interested in making them better. Start a dialog with some developers sometime; they'll appreciate it. If you find a clip that gives unexpected artifacts in your favorite codec, send it to the developers. It doesn't take much time.
Roj
Re: OGG Vorbis 1.0 Released
July 31, 2002 12:30AM
"If you don't "subscribe" to blind listening tests, then you're not very scientific. This is accepted practice. Without a good scientific test, it's very difficult to make a conclusion about the quality of a codec and make it stick."

Just because something is accepted doesn't make it right. It was once accepted belief that the world was flat. And kindly explain what is so "scientific" about a system that basically doesn't allow the listener to focus on specific passages at their liesure, preferring instead to play glorified Russian Roulette.

As to supporting the tools, if and when I try a new version of Vorbis and it measures up to MP3 at high bitrates, I'll consider supporting it. At this point it remains an interesting development not yet mature enough for me to consider replacing MP3 with it.

* End Of Line *



____
Roj

"Faith manages."
- jms
Re: OGG Vorbis 1.0 Released
July 31, 2002 04:34AM
:-\ You're apt to bias the test results if you are allowed to know what you are hearing. The power of deception; the tricky human mind. Look at medical tests where placebo's appear to cure people's problems. If these concepts don't impress you, so be it.

I actually wasn't suggesting you support the Vorbis tools. I said "your favorite codec," whatever it may be.
Re: OGG Vorbis 1.0 Released
September 15, 2002 06:23PM
I don't understand. Certain lame mp3s are designed to be "CD quality." Certain oggs are also designed to be "CD quality." If they are both in fact "CD quality," how can ogg be better than mp3?
Re: OGG Vorbis 1.0 Released
September 16, 2002 05:04AM
Ogg Vorbis can achieve the same quality as MP3 with a smaller file.

You also have to understand that "CD quality" is a term that is often abused. Many people like to claim "CD quality" for compressed files that are no where near it. In addition, what is "CD quality" for one person may not be "CD quality" for another person.
Sorry, you do not have permission to post/reply in this forum.