OGG vs MP3

[c0deX]

On sound quality alone (who gives a crap about the philosophical virtues of open source) which is better? I've heard that ogg is better for lower bit rates, but I'm not sure thats true. I've also heard that on of the biggest benefits of ogg is that it supports more than two channels, and will therefore be useful for 5.1. What do all of you think?

[lamprey]

try encoding some files off a CD and compare. IMO it is very difficult to distinguish the difference. but OGG is better compressionwise, or will be, when it is finished, if you encode at 128, you get more bang for the byte. mp3 is getting old now, its to be expected that an improved compression algorithm would come along sometime :)

personally, ill never go to OGG, even if it is better than mp3. why? my car stereo plays mp3s, not OGGs. too much work for no reward.

[c0deX]

Too bad my cd drives aren't working right now (f*cking xp) or I would try a test.

[RedVixen]

How does it compare to WMA???

I heard that WMA at a bit rate higher was smaller than MP3 and better quality, and most MP3 players (including mine!!!) use WMA too!!!

Where can I find out about ogg???

[lamprey]

its my understanding that WMA is superior to MP3 at 64 bit, other than that, it is just a stupid attempt by microsoft to have their own proprietary sound format.

i usually dont bash microsoft, but i think they have no excuse for WMA. its just stupid.

[Somebody]

hey c0dex do you post at sa? :)

[Curi0us_George]

http://www.xiph.org/ogg/vorbis/index.html Great Vorbis info

If you want to find out intersting stuff about MP3, go to www.r3mix.net

[flatmatt]

Originally posted by RedVixen
I heard that WMA at a bit rate higher was smaller than MP3 and better quality, and most MP3 players (including mine!!!) use WMA too!!!

No. That doesn't make sense, since bitrate is a comparison between filesize and length.

[NeoRenegade]

WMA just really sucks.

[RedVixen]

:confused:

Isn't the bit rate something like the number of sample points in a period of the music??? The information that is 'sampled' at these points is then compressed to some method to make the file format right??? So you can have a 64 bit rate as a wave file or an mp3 file and it be different sizes??? (I've been reading some FAQ's and confused myself!!!)

Why is WMA so bad???

[jgalt]

RedVixen: It is difficult to discuss wma without igniting passions that burst into flames. Some people dislike MicroSoft and so anything they do is bad. Just like some (me included) suspect that anything touched by AOL is tainted. When tests and measurements are done on wma files, it is apparent they do an excellent job of delivering quality in a smaller file size than mp3. Ogg files are, or soon will be, even better. It isn't that we necessarily dislike a product, we may not like the producer. Obective analysis is difficult for some.

[Slogra]

read this: http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/SoundAndVision/FrameSet/0,1670,_sl_SoundAndVision_sl_Article_sl_0_cm_1653_cm_129_4395_1_cm_00,00.html

They compare mp3, wma and aac!!!

[Kevin]

Microsoft/AOL racists.

[and1k]

I hate WMA.
OK. It may be smaller, but (in Winamp) it takes up more processor and RAM than MP3's.
Plus:
Found in the Winamp Version History
Winamp 2.61:
* In accordance with Microsoft's license agreement, we no longer allow you to
use DSP plug-ins or alternate output plug-ins when playing WMA files.

Found in "The Internet For Beginners" paperback
One of the delightful aspects of the Internet is it's distain for commerce, this stems from how it was set up: Tax dollars paid for it.

Microsoft has forgotten about this with WMA. {Please wait while we process your application to listen to this music}
I want free music, I have to use MP3, I want to put WMA on CD, I'm stuffed. I can't change it to WAV with Winamp's DiscWriter plugin, and my Writer program refuses to put it on CD.
I have to put it on tape(!), then record it into WAV or MP3 or whatever.

And1k

[SNYder]

Originally posted by RedVixen
:confused:

Isn't the bit rate something like the number of sample points in a period of the music??? The information that is 'sampled' at these points is then compressed to some method to make the file format right??? So you can have a 64 bit rate as a wave file or an mp3 file and it be different sizes??? (I've been reading some FAQ's and confused myself!!!)

Why is WMA so bad???
Lets say you encode a 64kbps (kilo bytes per second) wma and a 64kbps mp3. the files will be almost exactly the same size (not including tags and other information that take up space. just the audio data.). This is because they are encoded at the same bitrate. for every second that passes in the song, 64 kilobytes of data is used to encode that second of audio. obviously the higher the bitrate, the more data used to encode that second of data, which in the end means better quality.

Mp3's may not sound as good at low bitrates as wma's might (because wma's were designed for better quality at low bitrates compared to mp3's) but mp3's far out perform wma's at higher bitrates. Even at the maximum bitrate possible for wma's, 160kbps wma's are still not CD quality. A 256kbps mp3 IS CD quality, something micorsoft can't touch. But I’d choose wma over mp3 any day if I needed to stream a song. Of course now, mp3Pro has come along, so fuck wma’s all together. FUCK EM I SAY!!!

[SNYder]

cool beans, sawg! :) thanks for the linkage.

[NeoRenegade]

Bitrate is just a number that determines size. Take any CBR MP3 file of yours:

Take the time, and figure out what it is measured in seconds, for example, Blur's Song 2 is exactly 2 minutes long, or 120 seconds.

Then take the bitrate. It's in kiloBITS per second, and Windows calculates sizes in bytes, so divide the bitrate by 8. That makes 16 kilobytes per second. Now, multiply 16 by 120. That makes 1920 kilobytes. Now check the filesize of the MP3 in Windows Explorer or My Computer. It's about 1920 kilobytes, isn't it? :):):)