Slashdot Mirror
Ogg The Conqueror? RC2 Is Out
jonathan_ingram writes: "There has been a lot of discussion recently in Slashdot about sound compression formats. Much has been focused on
Ogg Vorbis, but the most recent version available has been a beta released in Feburary.
Today, RC2 of Vorbis
has been released. The most important of the
many changes
is
channel coupling,
which means that Vorbis can now encode bitsteams at a much lower
bitrate than before.
Try it out today!"
Here are two reasons why some users will want to switch to Ogg Vorbis:
For me, the second one was the killer. Try it yourself! Pick a challenging piece, and encode it with LAME and Ogg Vorbis at the same bitrate, listen to both files, and see which sounds better.
Free Mac Mini
If your apathy leads you down the path of least resistance (mp3, microsoft windows, insert-proprietary-patented-method-here), you are doing your part to ensure the dominance of bad companies and bad patents.
Think of it like voting. Your apathy will cost you your freedom.
(everybody loves oversimplification)
Ogg Vorbis's popularity will be proportional to the enforcement of the MP3 patent(s?).
It doesn't have to be popular to serve a purpose. The mere threat of a completely free format waiting in the wings could just mean that MP3 is effectively free, aside from a few particularly litigation-sensitive companies paying patent royalties.
I'm sure more than one group has replied to UNISYS intimidation with, "We could be using PNG tomorrow."
---
You'd be surprised at the broadband connection available to things crawling around in your hair.
Vorbis developer Nick D'Amato has a working Quicktime component that lets Quicktime Player, the Quicktime plugin, iTunes, and any other QT app play vorbis files. See this thread from vorbis-dev for details, and download the plugin to help test it out.
I see alot of posts basically asking the question:
.. if people are unhappy with mp3s (they'll be unhappy with the low bitrate in the XP-bundled encoder, but same difference to the average Joe), they will search for an alternative. Hark! Ogg to the rescue!
"I don't think Ogg is as good as compression X, so why use it?"
Answers:
- You don't have to use it. Just support it. Be aware of it's existance. One day, it may be better than compression X.
- Should MP3 technology get hijacked by the corperate world (more so than it is today), we have an alternative that works, even if you feel it isn't the best sound in the world.
- Two researchers working on the same goal in different streams and parts of the world is a Good Thing (tm). Prevents information hoarding and management on bahalf of corperate interests.
(going off memory for the rest of this, maybe I'm wrong in some claims)
Interestingly enough, XP includes an mp3 encoder, but it only encodes up to some stupidly low bitrate (128? 64?). Since many people won't go out looking for another encoder, they will blindly encode at low bitrates.
Ironically, in the long run, I think mp3s popularity will help Ogg
People will always look at the "is X better than Y" when comparing technologies. What they are missing is that many, many industries are as far ahead as they are right now due to competing projects by seperate scientific/mathematical efforts. Finally, seperate projects also allow for validation of efforts. If, in some far off evil world, mp3s patent owner X says, "I can't improve sound quality, because that would break this and that.", a seperate camp of researchers can say, "bullshit! you're just saying that because MS is paying to help drive users to windows media". Or whatever the case may be.
The value of parallel research is almost always more than the sum of the parts.
"Old man yells at systemd"
Congratulations to the OV team. While I haven't used it for a while, when I did it seemed quite nice.
Having said that what I currently use, which is MP3s, sound great and they work great, so why should I as Joe Consumer care about OV? What sort of license fees does the MP3 patent owner (Fraunhofer?) put on companies such as Winamp, or do they only charge MP3 ripper type products?
I guess my question is this: If I don't have a religious problem with patents, why should I care about alternatives if they're only as good as MP3?
It is my goal to replace my wife and my CD collection of 400-500 discs ...
Current version of Ogg Vorbis can only do the later :-)
Our "The Name Sucks!"/"The name Rulez!" mail ratio is about 50/50. Some of you have threatened to kill us if we change the name, some of you have threatened to kill us if we don't. So you're gonna hear what I think about it. I'm not going to waste the opportunity my minor fame gives me for a healthy round of peer-mockery.
<tongue-in-cheek>
<neeneer-neener>
I Like The Name. I Wrote the Software. The Name Stays. </neener-neener>
But there's more to this story than 'nyah nyah'. The 'rename Ogg!' forces have provided me with some of my favorite mail ever. I recall fondly the guy who went on, in great detail, why 'Ogg Vorbis' sucks, and that I must adopt 'a cutting edge, truly kick-ass name like "FreeMP3"!!!!!'
As for 'Ogg Vorbis', I hadn't really meant the 'Vorbis' part to get tacked on. The name of the format is Ogg. Just Ogg. Vorbis happens to be the first codec. Had 'Vorbis' been perhaps one more syllable (like, say 'Sorensen'), we wouldn't have this problem. People would just call it 'Ogg' like God (that's me) intended. Of course, particularly obsessive people *do* occasionally say 'QuickTime Sorensen', but they don't get invited to parties much, and when invited, they are shunned. 'Course they're usually just arguing with the punch bowl so shunning is easy.
I don't want my users to be shunned at parties, so I'm gonna help you out here. Just call it 'Ogg'. Ogg is a good, simple, very satisfying word.
It makes a good noun, a better verb and can even be used effectively in a curse. It is a real word and contains no numbers. It has only two unique characters, making it simpler than mp3. It is only one syllable, making it shorter to say than mp3. If you still can't handle it, try reboot-reinstall.
</tongue-in-cheek>
Monty
xiph.org
FYI, I have been using this for my MP3 jukebox:
webplay.sourceforge.net
I looked at a couple hundred jukebox projects and this was the one that met my needs best. It even lets you play the files ON the file server, if it has a sound card... so my jukebox is a P200 hidden behind the stereo. Webplay can do simultaneous streams to other computers on your LAN too, if you want. Cool stuff.
Unfortunately the poster didn't mention this, so I will.
This is a tuning release. Although all infrastructure like channel coupling is in place, the encoder itself is not ideally tuned yet. One of the goals of this release is to get people to test the new modes and report possible problems (samples were it goofs up). If you do this, be sure to try a blind test. Your mind _will_ play tricks on you otherwise.
Two known problems currently are pre/postecho on some really hard samples, and occasional 'hissing' in the low bitrate modes (< 160).
Both are known and will be fixed in the very near future. RC3 is already expected next week.
--
GCP
See http://developer.apple.com/quicktime for details. Indeed Apple even has a program where they'll put you on their updates system and as an at-need component download. With that in place simply sending someone an Ogg Vorbis-encoded file would trigger their getting the codec automagically.
I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
Ogg the Conqueror?
Close. It's Oog the Caveman. But nice try.
What is currently being done in the matter of multi-channel compressed audio? At this point, all of these formats seem to support stereo only. It doesn't seem like it would be that hard to implement a Dolby Digital compression algorithm. There is currently limited support for the format outside of DVDs but the music that is out there is impressive. Perhaps the OV guys could put something together after they finalize this format?
Life is the leading cause of death in America.
Coupling is there.... you just can't override the hardwired stereo model selection right now.
Monty
Why would you want lower bitrates?
This question is moderated as "Flamebait". Often moderators don't do very well, I think. The emphasis seems to be on disapproving, rather than approving.
This is a reasonable question. And here is an answer: I'd like to use lower bit rates to make smaller audio files. I do international tech support sometimes, and speaking is 5 times faster than writing. Sometimes an audio file is the best way of responding.
Ogg produces great-sounding voice files.
Anyone know of a recording application? I'm having trouble finding one that is suitable. A Windows version will work; I'd like a Linux recorder also.
Bush's education improvements were
Are you sure that you're using an up to date version of Oggenc? I know that my old version (beta1, IIRC) was painfully slow, but that a newer one (beta4) was about as fast as lame (about 2.5x on my PIII 500) and produces good sound quality at 128 kbit/s. This is confirmed by what they say on theirweb site. They made substantial progress with beta4 and strongly reccomend that you upgrade if you're using anything older than that.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
The only difference was that the low end was less impressive on the OGG than the CD. I put on a few songs and started them simultanously and switched the amp from CD to cassette in (which happened to be my computer). Although it is possible that the casette input amp is less accurate near the low end than the CD input amp, I doubt it. The speakers used were Bose 501s. Conclusion: at 256k/sec, OGG was fine at the high end, but strangely enough, not good enough at the low end.
You are comaring:
a) OGG -- decoded stream -- soundcard -- casette input -- amp -- speakers
b) CD -- decoded stream -- CD-D/A-converter -- CD-input -- amp -- speakers
If alternative a doesn't sound as good as b, this doesn't say anything about the ogg-encoding, because it isn't the only variable. Maybe the difference is caused by the different audio-characteristics of soundcard and CD-D/A-converter.
To get a valid comparison, rip the content of the CD as WAV. Then compare the WAV and the OGG, using the same soundcard and the same amp-input. Everything else is totally meaningless.
But even with this setting, there remains one additional variable: your psyche. If ogg and wav were bit-per-bit equal you will still recognize a difference when you know which one of the two you are hearing. So if you want to get meaningful results, you have to make a double-blind-test.
It's really sad how easy it is for the marketing guys to convince people that alternative codecs are inferior, because 95% don't understand anything about scientific methods or statistics. And they will do that, because they have the budget and we have not.
His beta 4 files will continue to work forever... Nothing about this release makes old files incompatable.
:-)
...Or shall I just stop improving things at this point?
Monty
I ran across that story after a 36 hour sleepless (well, ok, a :20 nap) hacking session pushing out rc2. Gah. Nasty.
I was kinda surprised that it was Ogg that drove away my wife (here I thought it was my awful personality. What a relief),that I've been habitually unemployed, destitute, and that I don't even own a proper desk. Ah-heh.
Unfortunately, the green shag carpeting part is completely true. Damn you, the 1970's! Will you never die?!
Monty
(Oh well, at least it seemed to be positive on Ogg)
I don't know what you've done, but Oggenc should run at 4x _at least_ on your system.
The 128kbps mode is not ideally tuned (IMHO), but the problems are known. 160kbps is already a lot better.
--
GCP
Free Mac Mini
I'd love to use Ogg Vorbis and be a good little Free Software guy, but I tried using it this morning and was disappointed.
I compared an Ogg (uning the encoder that came out today) file with a 128KB/s mp3 and a medium quality VBR mp3 (both made with Lame) and I just didn't think the Ogg file was quite there. I was using the same file for all of the tests (Mahler's 9th Symphony).
Also, on my Athlon 900 Oggenc went at 0.6x encoding speed. I usually get 5-8x with 128KB/s mp3s.
I ended up settling on going a little bigger and using a 192KB/s MP3, which I'd say is still the best option.
Best wishes to the Ogg Vorbis team. I hope that I can eventually ditch my mp3s.
Channel coupling is a method of decreasing the bitrate while maintaining identical or similar quality. Vorbis supports multiple modes, from a "lossless stereo" to aggressive modes. The lossless mode produces greater compression with bit-for-bit identical output results to non-coupled modes. The more aggresive modes sacrifice some of the stereo separation in order to decrease the bitrate.
So, your question is a little silly. The whole point to having multiple bitrates is to allow the user to choose their preferred mix of quality and size. If an aggressive channel-coupling mode can provide significant size savings while having a minimal impact on quality, lots of people will find that worthwhile. And, as you would know if you read the link before posting, you don't have to sacrifice quality at all! Do you really need to ask why someone might want to encode in a mode which has a lower bitrate and identical quality?
in rc 2, the hardwired stereo models are:
up to 96kbps lossless stereo to 4/6kHz (depending on block), point/6phase/lossless stereo above that
128 lossless stereo to 4/6kHz, 6phase/lossless to 11kHz, point/6phase/lossless stereo above
160 lossless stereo to 4/6kHz, 8phase/lossless to 11kHz, point/8phase/6phase/lossless above
192 lossless stereo to 4/6kHz, 8 phase/lossless above
256+ lossless coupling
The trigger between different stereo models is currently amplitude based (how far the spectral energy is from the noise floor). The trigger threshholds are also increasingly conservative as bitrate increases.
Monty
I know I need to post this to the authors, but... It is my goal to replace my wife's and my CD collection of 400-500 discs with a hard drive. We'd like to be able to put the CDs in a closet and reclaim some living room space. So, I ripped 10 or so titles and compared them to the original. The rip quality was 256kb/sec. I'm not exactly an audiophile, but I won't tolerate noise, so maybe a lossy compression isn't right for me. I didn't notice any high end problems or artifacts like MP3. Stereo seperation was excellent. The only difference was that the low end was less impressive on the OGG than the CD. I put on a few songs and started them simultanously and switched the amp from CD to cassette in (which happened to be my computer). Although it is possible that the casette input amp is less accurate near the low end than the CD input amp, I doubt it. The speakers used were Bose 501s. Conclusion: at 256k/sec, OGG was fine at the high end, but strangely enough, not good enough at the low end. If the low end can be clarified / amplified (hard to tell, psychoacoustics are strange), I'll be OGGing away for a good long time.
Actually, the libraries are BSD-licensed so companies will be more likely to adopt it.
So, why is this article listed under the "patents pending" topic again?
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
I've noticed most of the posts here are saying how awful Vorbis sounds... I've been using it for quite a while now, and have done pretty extensive testing myself as well as reading what alot of other people have had to say. I don't have "Golden Ears" or $10k worth of stereo equipment, just a decent pair of headphones, but it's ALWAYS been my opinion that ogg sounds better than mp3. I sent one to a friend once, and his first reaction was, "WOW! This is ALOT better than mp3!". And that was with the beta 4 encoder. Even those crazy guys over on the r3mix.net forums have lots of praise for Ogg Vorbis.
Like the topic says, I haven't been able to get to RC2 yet, thanks to it being slashdotted, but I seriously doubt RC2 sounds worse than beta 4, and while encode times _are_ slower than mp3, they're nowhere near as slow as some people are saying. (I get about 3x speed on my Duron 850 with b4). Clicks and pops are likely a cause of a bad rip from the CD, not the encoder.
I've been using nothing but Ogg for my CDs for a while now, and have encouraged many friends to do the same. People really need to give Ogg a fair, unbiased try before they go saying it sucks, because it's most definitely at the very least, better than mp3 at the same bitrate. Check out PCABX for info on how to do a good double-blind listening test.
Congrats to Monty and the rest of the Ogg Vorbis team. Keep up the good work.
I don't think there are any un-patented 5.1 channel codecs around.
Actually, if you look at the last answer on the Vorbis FAQ you'll see that Ogg Vorbis already supports encoding of up to 255 channels per stream, so, theoretically at least, it ought to be a cinch to use Vorbis for 5.1 audio.
This could be a real opportunity for Ogg to become the first mainstream audio codec to support 5.1 explicitly. It would be a real leg-up for Ogg's chances if it gets accepted as the choice of audiophiles, and having 5.1 supported before MP3 and WMA can only help with that. Those who have experimented with DVD Audio would finally have a format worth considering for ripping purposes, and it helps that Vorbis sounds very musical.
Despite having their funding cave almost all the way in, the good folks at Xiphonious have gone ahead and pounded out the format that will kill Mpeg-based audio. It will be the most decisive victory of Open Source Software over propriety formats, even moreso than the Linux/Windows competition.
While this is strictly my opinion, these are the reasons I beleive this:
1. Xiph has spent a great deal of time on the niceties of the format. As much, or moreso than the format itself. They've made sure that anyone can encode high-quality OGGs with both a command line and a 'droplet' style encoder. They've also made sure that anyone can play oggs with plugins for all the most popular MP3 players. Their player libraries are all LGPL'd, making it so that anyone else can include OGG functionality in plugin-style to their application.
2. Because of the LGPL'd libraries, developers and publishers can use OGG format audio for free, rather than paying a patent-fee to the Fraunhoeffer institue. This is a pretty major thing, since it deducts five dollars from the cost of any given software distribution. Not a lot for a single game, but think of the money that a popular company like Verant would save by distributing their next game with an Ogg-based soundtrack. Ogg translates directly to monetary savings!
3. MP3 is compatiable with Stereo CD streams. That's great, but you really can't encode Dolby 5.1 audio without sacrificing quality. Ogg can do 255 channels, making it 'Dolby 5.1' ready. DVD Audio ain't gonna stay copy-protected for long, and when it's protection goes, you can be sure that the people encoding it will use Ogg instead of mp3 so that there is no quality loss.
4. MP3 is a dirty word if you work for an RIAA company. There are now dozens of firms who work to track down file-traders on P2P networks, IRC, Websites, and FTP sites. They aren't searching for Ogg's yet. As it becomes more and more difficult to trade MP3's, people will turn to Ogg like people who used Napster turned to Bearshear and other Gnutella clients.
5. Ogg offers significant quality improvements over MP3. Windows Media offers these same kind of improvements, but they come at the cost of restrictive Microsoft policy such as limited bit rates and 'digital rights management' schemes. Since Ogg format doesn't even contain hooks for digital rights, I think I know where the majority of Audiophiles are going to be looking for their online audio fixes.
6. The Vorbig Fishy ROCKS!
Like I said, just my opinions...
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
Encode MP3s, RC2-OGGs, and whatever else you like, at all the bitrates you are interested in. I recommend doing this for many different types of music you like.
IMPORTANT STEP 1:
Once they're on your computer, decompress them back into a .WAV file. Make sure you keep track of which .wav came from which compressed file. If you tested both MP3 and OGG at 3 different bitrates each, you will have 6 .WAV files for each song, plus the original .WAV (don't delete it). Then cut out relevant passages from each of the songs, maybe a minute each, with a wav editor.
IMPORTANT STEP 2:
Once you have these wav files on your hard drive, tell your roommate to burn them on a CD, in an order that he will write down but not reveal to you. Then put the CD into your stereo and get a good paid of headphones. Crank it up, and take notes on which versions of the passages sound the best and why. See how successful you are in identifying the original wav file when you don't know which it is. See if there is any pattern to your responses.
Until you do a double-blind test like this (come on, it's not difficult) you really shouldn't be shooting your mouth off about which format sounds better.
In most cases, a 60kbps OGG file sounds as good as an 128k mp3. An 80k OGG is as good as 160k mp3 and half the size.
If you are serving audio streams, you can actually strip away parts of the files to make lower bitrate streams--without re-coding. (wow!) MP3 can't.
You can have more than 2 audio channels. MP3 can't.
The comment fields are well defined and you can have whatever attributes you want, with strings as long as necessary. ID3 for mp3s is a hack; string lengths are limited and you can't add easily add your own fields.
If you have a portable player, you would appreciate the smaller size with high quality.
In the future, you can select how you want stereo coupling done (not in this release). (Mp3 can.)
If you make computer games, you have a high quality free way of adding a lot of music to your games. (possibly patents for mp3)
You can do 44.1khz and 48 khz audio.
You can concatenate multiple streams together to make one file, and it will play correctly. You can also cut portions out and paste them together without re-encoding.
Ogg's are exactly the same length as the original WAVs--something MP3 lacks--so that when you make recordings of live shows, gaps don't appear in you r audio.
The encoder sounds good by default, so music traded on file sharing systems sounds good (unlike all those terrible 128k mp3s encoded by anything that isn't LAME).
Got friends?