Welcome! » Log In » Create A New Profile

OGG vs. MP3 vs. etc (again)

Posted by nugzz 
OGG vs. MP3 vs. etc (again)
November 13, 2002 03:27PM

I still have most of my music on (origional) CDs. I have been considering ripping so I can have my music more easily accessible.

I would like to use ogg because I will always support open source if available. Is there a big downside to ripping ogg instead of mp3, etc. Downloading will be whatever is available, but in terms of my rips should I use ogg?

Any comments on formats? Links appreciated as well.
Re: OGG vs. MP3 vs. etc (again)
November 13, 2002 06:28PM
During the last month i encoded like 200 albums in ogg format, using -q4 switch. All was sounding good on my desktop pc but when i burned some compilation and listen them in my discman, oups sound shity....I suppose that moving the switch to -q6 or -q8 will gives me better results but at this bitrate i prefer good ol' mp3 (--alt preset) who gives me very good sounding files and gives me a great portabilty since hardware are now focused on mp3 decoding. However Xiph fondation word hard to promote ogg hardware decoding, but to me it's too late, mp3 win in my case.

(my apologize for my crappy english)
CoolPlayer User
Re: OGG vs. MP3 vs. etc (again)
November 13, 2002 09:48PM
it depends on what you want to do with the rips. if you plan to transfer them to a portable or you car cd player. ogg is in the process of getting support for hardware. mp3 already has it. you could wait and see and then decide later. or just go with mp3.

if you plan to listen to them on the computer and really want quality go with a lossless encoder. if you are worried about file size but still want quality go with musepack. granted the file sizes about the same size as aps in lame but the quality (to me) is much better. musepack is considered by most to be the best lossy encoder. but it does not have hardware support. you are limited to your computer use only - for me that is fine.

ogg has good quality - i use to use quality 6 and was well satisfied. i tried musepack and switched. just my personal preference - it "sounds" better to me. all purely subjective on my part

or go with lame at a setting you like and then you are covered all the way around. computer, portable, or car.

sorry to ramble on but i just made a similar decision myself and these were the key issues to me. hope it helps
Re: OGG vs. MP3 vs. etc (again)
November 14, 2002 09:16AM
"it depends on what you want to do with the rips"

I agree,if you have mp3 hardware theirs no substantial gain in sound quality that would warrant changing over to ogg other than maybe a moral one of supporting a open source developement that if you choose you could take part in.

Saying that L.A.M.E is an excellent VBR encorder and is open source with many people contributing their time to testing and development.In fact modern compression encoders give exellent sound Vs quality ratio's.To think you may take a 100Mb wave song and compress it to approx a tenth of it's orriginal size,10MB.With the only noticible loss I can sense is through vibration more than what you actually hear.

Of coarse being what you actually hear is the percussion of vibration ( particle displacement ) so their is a loss to be heard depending on your equipment used,both hardware and fleshware :-) speakers,amp,headphones and hears and body.

I encode sound for sharing both in VBR mp3 and ogg ,which is allso VBR,Provided the acoustics and temprament of encoder used, VBR should give better results than a relatively equal sized constant birate by using more or less compression where it's needed.

People who have a passion for their music naturally would like to feel they are recording it or compressing it in the best quality possible.

Personally I'd choose 10 free 12" records than 1000 copyrighted cd's,because I'm aware of the feeling not only from the sound bout the feelings fromhow I obtain that sound.If I download a song from a fellow artist especially one who has given me permission to mix or do whatever I like with the sound I feel artistically unresticted and this can make the song feel that way allso.I Can't buy this feeling,though many try to sell it,because they know it sells and thats what many are looking for.

My recommendation to anyone that is seeking peace of mind in whatever they choose to do,believe,make,creative,progressive,evolve,call it what you will, if it;s given for free without a condition then it is free without condition and its your use has you wish.

If it's sold with copyright and restriction than this is the products nature because this is the feeling in which it is being lent or rented for you to use.Though just because something is copyrighted dosn't allways mean it's not yours to do with as you please,usually the more small print the more restictions apply and quite often you need a law degree to understand half of what you are agreeing too.

If your interested in having the best with the fairest,choose the simple option and pick the one that lays it's cards on the table.


And maybe one day with the free mentality an end to conflict over resource and belief.

And just because you help by choosing L.A.M.E or ogg or a commercially open product other than a commercially restricted product.
Re: OGG vs. MP3 vs. etc (again)
November 14, 2002 07:15PM
I agree with most of what people say here, I've been recording in the mp3 format for almost 3 years and find the quality fine, if you want to listen on portable players and stuff mp3 has the most wide spread support. The last few months I have been researching the OGG format and now only encode in that format, as far as quality goes they are just as good as each other, the mean difference is I can get smaller file sizes with OGG at the same quality as mp3.

I think a lot of people worry about if a file format is going to be popular or not, the way I see it is if you like it use it! When I first starting using mp3's nobody I new had ever heard of them and it was months before I found out about the first few portable players (only a hand full), I know that a few mp3 portable manufacturers are already looking into bringing out players for the OGG format.
Re: OGG vs. MP3 vs. etc (again)
November 30, 2002 02:28AM
i have ripped cd's and listened to the wave files, and then listened to the ogg files on quality 1 settings. and i really can't tell the difference between them. i dont know if its my ears or my headphones or what.. i have been recording alot of my cd's on quality 1.
Re: OGG vs. MP3 vs. etc (again)
December 10, 2002 12:12AM
To me, it's this simple.

- use OGG if you dont have a portable player, or if your portable player supports OGG's like the rio.
- use OGG if you want to conserve filespace on your hard-drive. I mean a 30mb album isnt a whole lot of room compared to a 70mb mp3 album.
- use OGG because its FREE, nobody can take that away from you, its free as in air, not beer. As long as your alive, its yours winking smiley
- use OGG if you want to stream music off your computer (damn 45kbps sounds good in ogg!!)
-use OGG if you want a better filesize/quality ratio.

- use MP3 if you have a mp3 player like one of the many cd/mp3 players out there, if you want to be consistant.
- use MP3 if you don't mind ripping off the fraunhoffer(sp?) guys because just an mp3 decoder costs money (legally) these days.

Overall (for me) OGG comes out on top when you consider quality/filesize/freedom to use it. If you agree with my points above, make your own decision on them and then you'll know what you need winking smiley

BTW OGG encoded at quality 5 gives you complete stereo seperation, but 4.99 does not, 4.99 and below is like joint stereo for mp3. Almost nobody can notice it but I hear some differences in the quality with my expensive headphones.
Re: OGG vs. MP3 vs. etc (again)
December 10, 2002 12:28AM
Thanks to everyone that weighed in on this.

I dont have much invested into mp3 at this point so i dont have anything to lose by going to ogg. As far as reburning stuff to take with me(car/Discman), I usually go back to plain old cd track format anyways. Then if i wan to "go grab something out of my car," I can let someone else listen to it and if they like my music they can just keep it and use it on whatever cd player they have. As far as portable devices go, My next purchase will likely be some sort of PDA running linux so i can use ogg, mp3, whatever.

Thanks to all!

I think ill begin to rip to ogg.
Any sugestions for software? I saw all the links on xiph but if you got favs let me know!
Re: OGG vs. MP3 vs. etc (again)
December 10, 2002 04:02AM
use CDex and rip your OGG"s from that cd ripping program. that should get you setup. I know CDex supports OGG. I'm pretty sure it supports the latest
Re: OGG vs. MP3 vs. etc (again)
December 12, 2002 06:23AM
as long as you dont have mp3 hardware.. theres no reason not to use ogg.. ogg has better quality for small files.. and sounds awesome.

i have been ripping quite a few of my files to ogg format.. it sounds so much better than mp3.. and the disk space savings really add up.
Re: OGG vs. MP3 vs. etc (again)
December 17, 2002 06:57PM
Yeah graig, I kept seeing in all the forums people saying they encode at quality 5 or 6 and I was thinking, **** man is there somthing wrong with my ears or something! I cant hear any difference at a quality setting of 1.75! (lowest I go before hearing a difference) I dont have a top of the range system or anything but what I've got I thinks great, its a JVC micro HiFi, the bass is kick ass and fills the room, really loud and clear, I also use the sound card on the Nforce boards. Of course if you have a cheap sound card or nasty speakers its going to be difficult telling the difference at any setting, my advice is record a load of tracks you know well at different settings, burn them to CD, then run round ya mate house (yeah the one with the expansive HiFi) want be long before you'll find the ideal setting. smiling smiley

I kinda agree with Erukian about going with mp3 if your new to all the formats and want portabilty, but I say screw it and go with OGG anyway, its taken me two years of searching for portabiles players, and I've only JUST found one or two I actualy like. Yeah I'm fussy, moon on a stick guy and all that, but I want something really small, were talking "zippo lighter" small, with a gizillion MB's of Ram packed in. Only in the last few months I found one which has 256Mb's, not bad I thought but it only does mp3's. Point I'm making is the good stuff has ONLY started to come out as far as I'm concerned, manufactures are getting better at making the players and supporting new features, so stick with OGG and eventually something will show up, you'll be glad you stuck with the format because you'll be able to fit lots more music on the player.
Re: OGG vs. MP3 vs. etc (again)
December 27, 2002 09:51AM
For this christmas all I asked for was an mp3 player. Now that I have one I realize most of my collection (about 8 gigs worth) is in OGG. Luckily I can convert my ogg's to mp3's just for the mp3 player's purpose and then bring the player wherever I want. I usually reduce the quality to somewhere between 128-112kbps mp3 because with my earbuds that the player came with, I don't notice the quality drop.

Because I got a mp3 player that doesnt mean I will stop encoding my cd's into ogg's. It means that I can easily convert the songs I want and with a program, have it drop the converted files right onto my device.

So for me at least, hardware isnt too much of an issue anymore, especially with crappy headphones/earbuds.
Re: OGG vs. MP3 vs. etc (again)
March 05, 2003 06:58PM
I have something to put in: for exelent rips, go for Exact Audio Copy, www. ExactAudioCopy.de! this prog makes perfect rips, if you have scratches on your discs its very probable that EAC can still read them. and you dont have to listen to all your songs to be sure wheter there are scratches and other problems, cuz EAC gives an error report.

for the best quallity, use MusePack. that encoder gives higher quallity than Ogg and mp3 (actually the best encoder available) and its, like vorbis and mp3, compattible with EAC. and if you simply put the plugin in the coolplayer directory, it can playback the mpc filez.

for info and downloads: www.musepacksource.de


OGG has its advantages
March 06, 2003 11:13PM
I personaly think after sound and size comparisond tah OGG is superior. There are three things good about it:
1) the codec is absolutely free. No royalities and unable to be Officialy made propriatary
2) Sound is better. A comparison between files made form the same wave file showed that OGG at a LOWER bitrate (and vbr) was superrior to the cbr mp3 encoded at a HIGHER bitrate.
3) The size. Smaller then mp3 and better WOW why not switch. One thing.
Shareing. Nobody (on WinMX that i can find) has OGG. Ahh well. Tis the way of the codecs.

Will someone use winelib and port it to Linux if you know linux?

To all you whiners wanting lots of function and extra code chew on this:
ogg needs more time
April 06, 2003 04:00PM
i think vorbis needs more time

its only 6 months old and you can find files on kazaa

How old is MP3???????????????????
How long has it taken to share m3 files(napster)

MP3 excist since 5-10 years (i dont know, but i've heard something like that)


excuse my bad english (Im a little boy from austria- who wants to hear good music without spending all his pocket money)

Re: OGG vs. MP3 vs. etc (again)
April 13, 2003 06:26AM
Interesting discussion...

Has anyone tried here the APX (--alt-preset extreme) lame 3.90.2 (dibrom) preset ??

The only real downside i can find is the filesize... sigh. Sure, for an average 230-240 kbps, the 100Mb album is the average, and the tough 120 Mb is not rare (typically electronica heavily saturated/textured things..)... 80Mb is possible for standard simple pop things, but rare. I even had a 59 Mb (mostly a pure guitar folk bare voice thing) album in APX, but was really an exception (lol..). But all in all, as for as quality, the sound is in itself top notch enough too imo.. and on burnt CDs too thereafter, if needed (and very sharable/obtainable.. main point of mp3s today, for me, imo..). The no gapless feature (for burning live cds) can be a problem too due to the mp3 format... but there are ways to resolve this nowadays (mp3trim, etc), even if it is not as transparent and simple for this as ogg apparently, evidently!

For information, what are the average bitrates for "highest" quality OGGs ; from what i understood here, top ogg quality are 6-8... (i mainly look for nice archivable quality, once for all in my rips... but all the same lighter in size than the typical ~1:4 "lossless" codecs -rolleyes). What are the typical album sizes for Ogg 6-8 (just to compare with APX for the size..) ? TIA.. i could become more and more interested too in those higher ogg settings if the filesizes are way better than APX (and quality, are the very least, equal, evidently); yes, ogg seems to be good now, apparently.

tia... yes, sure, the ogg format seems to be more and more a solid alternative those days so...
Re: OGG vs. MP3 vs. etc (again)
April 25, 2003 10:26AM
I have been using MP3 for the past few years and made the switch to Ogg only recently. Playing around with the early betas of Ogg I was quite impressed, but when it went 1.0 I switched.

MP3 and Ogg vorbis are both good formats, obviously with MP3 being around longer it has a massive user base. Now game developers are keen to use the Ogg format instead of mp3 for soundtracks in games (UT2003 for one) and is slowly winning over people because there are no royalities to be paid (Not to mention it has a very nice enc/dec algorithm).

CDex is a great program, I'm using it with Ogg vorbis to encode my CDs at the quality setting of 7. Not bad at all. smiling smiley
Re: OGG vs. MP3 vs. etc (again)
April 30, 2003 02:56PM
"Has anyone tried here the APX (--alt-preset extreme) lame 3.90.2 (dibrom) preset ??"

Yes - OGG Q8 trounced it.

Listen to the stereo separation. The detail. The clarity. The depth of the bass. It's like having a veil lifted off the sound.


"Faith manages."
- jms
Re: OGG vs. MP3 vs. etc (again)
April 30, 2003 07:26PM
Is there any programm supporting the ogg tags too?

cdex does not, coolplayer does not
I think EAC does not, i have to pay for audiograbber

the only prog supporting the tags to is togger and mp32tag, i dont know any other

Re: OGG vs. MP3 vs. etc (again)
May 01, 2003 02:50AM
Yes - QCD (Quintessential Player).

It also features the best audio quality of any player I have heard, bar none. This includes (from best to worst) XMPlay, CoolPlayer, Winamp + MAD, and <shudder> FUBAR2k (no, that's not a typo).

WinVorbis also supports OGG tagging and encoding.


&quot;Faith manages.&quot;
- jms
Re: OGG vs. MP3 vs. etc (again)
May 01, 2003 08:17AM
karlrt wrote:
"Is there any programm supporting the ogg tags too?

cdex does not"

Actually CDex DOES support the creation of Ogg tags when encoding. Maybe you got to update your version.
And CP supports OGG Tags in the 213 version, I verified that myself smiling smiley.


Re: OGG vs. MP3 vs. etc (again)
May 01, 2003 10:09PM

You seem to present subjective opinions as strong facts, even though you don't present much (any) factual blind listening test results.

I'd just want to say to other readers that in these cases there's a big possibility of bias and placebo affecting the results, regardless of the tester.

Especially funny is the downhill of foobar player after sympatico.ca was banned from the #foobar2000 irc-channel.. winking smiley

Anyway, what comes to ogg -q8, it is quite good but it is not perfect. I'd like to test how well Roj can really hear the difference between high quality mp3 and -q8 Vorbis when he doesn't know which is which. smiling smiley
Re: OGG vs. MP3 vs. etc (again)
May 02, 2003 02:41AM
I don't believe in blind listening tests - period.

I view them as pure nonsense.


Because I can and have for a great many years evaluated better doing repeated A/B tests on a given passage of a song (and anyone else can too if they have any ears at all and don't subscribe to the rhetoric) than all the "blind listening tests" in the world can afford. No blind listening test allows you to focus solely on the sublte nuances of a given segment of music - by definition they prevent that kind of listening analysis from ever being truly feasible.

Suffice it to say I have little respect for the myth of that "method" of testing, especially in light of the fact that I've pointed out more of those nuances in a given segment of music to listeners who would have overlooked them if they had employed such a so-called "impartial testing method".

I'd just like to point out to readers:

Listen for yourselves with your own *focused* A/B tests using material you know extremely well and trust your own ears. Don't believe the so-called "audiophile hype" - Focus and Listen and don't let the confusion of "blind taste tests" blunt your observations. It's far too easy to get conned into the Emperor's New Clothes Syndrome that way. Also, bias and placebo are often invoked in a situation where one cannot adequately defend one's argument - especially in the audio world. Tarring and feathering, doncha know... smiling smiley

I do wonder if JohnV has the ears to be able to discern what *lossless* sounds like when he is suitably confused and obfuscated in a blind listening test - that alone has the potential for considerable entertainment.

On the sympatico.ca comment:

I must confess that it lost me completely - I must have blinked and missed that one. I've never participated in IRC (and I might add have no desire to waste any time there).

Carry on with great exuberance!


&quot;Faith manages.&quot;
- jms
Re: OGG vs. MP3 vs. etc (again)
May 02, 2003 01:59PM
I'll slice through what I consider to be apologist rhetoric and cut to the chase:

I don't do blind taste tests because after dabbling in audio for some 25 years (audio is inherently a tool for me to enjoy the music with and not the mindless pursuit of gear that is all too common with many who brand themselves "audiophiles"), I really feel no need to waste my time on one. If someone feels the need to justify himself / herself with the crutch afforded by such a test, then that is indeed their right.

Suffice it to say that I prefer a more strightforward and independent approach of my own choosing and design - it has served me (and many another) very well over the years.

I do concur with JohnV's statement that one should try both, if one absolutely feels the need. Some will then see through the flaws surrounding the premise (different hearing capabilities / varying levels of detail perception caused by someone not knowing what they really are listening for / etc. etc. etc. - I always loved that line from "The King And I" smiling smiley ) while others will not.

As I said before, carry on with great exuberance! and this concludes all the time that I'm willing to "devote" to this matter. smiling smiley

I'll continue to keep an eye on CoolPlayer from time to time, albeit a somewhat jaundiced one.


&quot;Faith manages.&quot;
- jms
P. Saraga
Re: OGG vs. MP3 vs. etc (again)
May 02, 2003 05:05PM
>Some will then see through the flaws surrounding the premise (different
>hearing capabilities / varying levels of detail perception caused by
>someone not knowing what they really are listening for

Mr. Roj,

I wanted to draw your attention to the fact that this is not a flaw, but the exact goal of a blind test. If the a priori sensitivity and concentration of test subjects is not equalized, the test can never have any scientific value.

This seems to fit in with the rest of your argument, because you are basically dismissing the scientific method. This is fine, but a discussion based on rejection of the scientific method should have no right of existence when what is being discussed is the exact result of that scientific method.

The rest of your argument is without base, for example you say

'No blind listening test allows you to focus solely on the sublte nuances of a given segment of music - by definition they prevent that kind of listening analysis from ever being truly feasible.'

When in fact the ABX based tests are exactly designed to have that property. Of course, you do not give any argument to found your conclusion.

With this kind of argument, there can never be a constructive discussion.

With friendly greetings,

Re: OGG vs. MP3 vs. etc (again)
May 02, 2003 05:57PM
Everyone is entitled to their doubts - whether they are relevant or not. The vagaries of forum denizens and the politics inherent to them are quite thankfully no longer of any concern to me which should provide you with some insight as to their relevance. smiling smiley

Regarding your acquaintance, given that I spend a lot of my time listening to lossless these days, I can certainly see the other gentleman's point of view on mp3. In my experience, the vast majority of computer multimedia users have neither the equipment nor the experience to be able to tell the difference anyway. It's quite unreasonable to assume that your average user running a Live! and Z-560s will have the same hardware capabilities as someone running a Revo and Monsoon PM-14s - one set of equipment cannot even reproduce the material with the same competency as the other - and that's *before* you even touch on the user. Travelling even further down that road, if someone can't tell the difference between a CD of material burned from MP3 and the original source CD on a good home system (say Anthem / Energy or Myryad / Martin-Logan) then might I suggest that said individual seriously consider having their hearing tested - very thoroughly. THOSE differences are rather stark - they are even discernible on some multimedia systems. Should you ever try the above in a full-blown listening room some time, I'm *very* sure you'll see what I mean - it's inescapable.

Then there is the whole issue of the competency of the wav output or DirectSound implementation (the players discussed highlight that most handily), the audible differences between output from an APE or FLAC plugin (note that I'm not questioning the file format) versus original .wav vs. original CD (I suspect that this can again be traced back to programming) and on and on and on...

Too many variables.

Too many foibles.

In any event, it becomes pretty obvious at this point that it's all a crap shoot - and blind testing as you describe it here suffers from being built on that shaky "foundation" (I use the term extremely loosely).

But then again, YMMV. Lord knows there are enough fairy tales between the covers of the Brothers Grimm - what's a few more... smiling smiley

On that note, I bid you adieu until (perhaps) the next release of CoolPlayer - we'll see how it does. As it stands, I am already using another player as my mainstay.


&quot;Faith manages.&quot;
- jms
P. Saraga
Re: OGG vs. MP3 vs. etc (again)
May 02, 2003 06:13PM
>In any event, it becomes pretty obvious at this point that it's all a crap
>shoot - and blind testing as you describe it here suffers from being built
>on that shaky "foundation" (I use the term extremely loosely).

Mr Roj,

Which shaky foundation?

I see no arguments. Just handwaving. I could wave back, but that would not prove your point or claims.

Re: OGG vs. MP3 vs. etc (again)
May 02, 2003 07:34PM
Lossless is lossless. The flac/ape plugin decodes the bitstream and after that the audio data is bit-identical to original wav. The decoded audio bitstream (which is now identical to original wav audio) is handled similarly to original wav (at least in any sane player).

What you, roj, are suggesting doesn't make sense. Of course you can always do diskwrite with original wav and flac, and fc /b in order to check you have identical files written to disk (or you can grab the bitstream with Total Recorder or something). If you have bit-identical bitstreams which are handled similarly, it's simply impossible you could hear any difference (of course you can still _think_ you hear a difference, but it's placebo).
Re: OGG vs. MP3 vs. etc (again)
May 02, 2003 10:10PM
Well.. in principle it might be theoretically possible that if you don't use digital out and external dac, when decoding Monkey's, for example, the CPU and memory bus which have to work harder cause some RFI which might be theoretically audible in badly shielded sound card.

Anyway, it's not an issue in any case if you use digital out.

Your Email:


Spam prevention:
Please, enter the code that you see below in the input field. This is for blocking bots that try to post this form automatically.
  ******   ********   **      **  **     **  **       
 **    **  **     **  **  **  **  **     **  **       
 **        **     **  **  **  **  **     **  **       
 **        **     **  **  **  **  **     **  **       
 **        **     **  **  **  **   **   **   **       
 **    **  **     **  **  **  **    ** **    **       
  ******   ********    ***  ***      ***     ********