From the Minidisc vs MP3 thread:
Mp3 sounds fine if you encode it at 256k, maybe not on high end hi-fi's but certainly on portable players..Yes, but whats your opinion of the new Ogg Vorbis sound format. Supposedly, it sounds as clear/crisp/sharp at 128 kilobits as an mp3 sounds at 256; has better stereo separation; more effecient; less artifacting, etc.
Is this not the wave of the future?
Side thread for mp3 partisans: Whats yer favorite encoder?
― Lord Custos Omega (Lord Custos Omega), Thursday, 9 January 2003 14:14 (twenty-two years ago)
Ogg Vorbis has been the wave of the future since '97, though, and the future doesn't seem to be down with it.
― J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Thursday, 9 January 2003 14:53 (twenty-two years ago)
I have been following the development of the Ogg format for a while now, but I've become a bit desillusioned. For a few reasons:
1. It's too late. There's a huge installed base for MP3 now: PC's, DVD players, MP3 players, in-dash car MP3 players, etc. Microsoft already has considerable difficulty in gaining a foothold with its WMA format (which is superior to MP3 in bitrates smaller than 128 kbps but worse at higher ones), and Ogg doesn't have their clout and is even later.
2. It's not finished yet (which is a problem with lots of open source projects). There's also no specification of the format, so it's very difficult to implement Ogg support in whatever device (basically, you have to reverse-engineer the reference code to find out what it does). It's very PC-based: encoders and decoders are available on loads of platforms, but very little efficient DSP code for embedded devices. Most manufacturers would like to implement Ogg Vorbis in their MP3 players, but it's too much effort to write a decoder themselves, while they can simply buy proven code with MP3/WMA.
3. The quality is excellent but not spectacularly better than MP3. I don't know where you got the 128/256 comparison from, but most sources I've seen indicate that 128 kbps Ogg = 160-192 kbps MP3 (with a decent state-of-the-art encoder like LAME or FhG). Ogg Vorbis is more modern and has learned from the weaknesses of MP3, but is also held back a bit because the patent-free nature of Ogg means that some patented compression methods cannot be used.
4. Size doesn't matter that much as time goes on. Even if Ogg promises a 33% reduction in size at equal quality, ever increasing storage space and internet bandwidth makes file size less of an issue. It won't be long before we'll see DVD MP3 players with 4.5 GB discs - whether you can fit 75 or 100 hours worth of music on it isn't that big of an issue.
5. The idea of completely free format is great, but the license costs of MP3 are very low and make up so little of the cost of MP3 hardware that it doesn't really matter. This might change in the future though - but by then, Ogg might be obsolete too.
As for MP3 encoders, I use LAME 3.93 with the "archive quality" (--r3mix) preset, and 128 kbps ABR for stuff I publish online.
― Siegbran (eofor), Thursday, 9 January 2003 15:22 (twenty-two years ago)
Wait. "Better" is a bit too subjective.
How about a rephrase:
Does Ogg have more accurate/realistic/sophisticated stereo separation?
― Lord Custos Omega (Lord Custos Omega), Friday, 10 January 2003 16:02 (twenty-two years ago)
Non joint-stereo MP3 has perfect stereo separation. Joint stereo and Ogg Vorbis, it's up to the encoder to choose.
― Graham (graham), Friday, 10 January 2003 19:33 (twenty-two years ago)