Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: How exactly is ogg better? (Read 6683 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

How exactly is ogg better?

I've heard people saying things along the lines that OGG fits more details per kb than most codecs. Or that it is based off a model that more accuratly replicates the sound.

Could anyone just give me a run-down on why and how exactly it would do what these people claim, if it even can?

How exactly is ogg better?

Reply #2 –
Take a look at the results of the recent listening test linked on the front page.

How exactly is ogg better?

Reply #3 –
Vorbis just sounds better to my ears. Even when there is a noticable difference between the original and the Vorbis encoded version (usually when I'm doing low bitrate stuff for online distribution), the difference is usually acceptable and not annoying. In other words, the quality degrades better.

The real selling point, however, is: No patents, no royalties. 100% free. I can distribute my band's music in Vorbis without paying royalties. A software developer can use Vorbis in their product without paying royalties. It's that free software spirit.

How exactly is ogg better?

Reply #4 –
I suppose you mean Vorbis as Ogg is the file container only.

It is difficult to conclude that Vorbis can fit more details per kB than other codecs without doing subjective listening tests.  Based on the recent 128 kbps, even though Vorbis shared first place with MPC and beat codecs like LAME, ATRAC3, WMA, etc. we should note that both Vorbis and MPC used more bits for certain samples.....so the per kB point may not be valid in this case. 

If we compare Vorbis with the dominant format nowadays (MP3), then the former was designed with the limitations of the latter in mind.  One such thing I remember reading in an interview with Monty is noise normalization and how it compensates energy in low SNR regions, which without it, gives MP3 that characteristic 'underwater' artifact in low bitrates.  I think Monty's noise normalization technique is the 'magic' that makes Vorbis sound as good as it does at low bitrate.  It was first introduced in 1.0 and Monty said he will improve on it in future releases.

Anyway, Monty visits HA quite often now so he is definitely the best person to answer this question from a technical point of view.

How exactly is ogg better?

Reply #5 –
It's also been awhile since we've seen a version of LAME that doesn't have annoying issues...

How exactly is ogg better?

Reply #7 –
Quote
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/08/14/1034209

Here's an interview of Monty, done by Emmett. It was done around the time there were big Icecast/Vorbis banners on freshmeat and slashdot. (In other words, when I got interested in the early beta releases.)


Oh thanks, very good read!!

How exactly is ogg better?

Reply #8 –
Quote
Based on the recent 128 kbps, even though Vorbis shared first place with MPC and beat codecs like LAME, ATRAC3, WMA, etc. we should note that both Vorbis and MPC used more bits for certain samples.....so the per kB point may not be valid in this case. 

There is also a difference between the intrinsic format capabilities, and what the current implementations can actually achieve

This is one reason why despite being technically inferior LAME can still do so well.

The difference in effiency between MP3 and AAC was also explained in a recent thread here, though I don't have the link handy.