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!"
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"
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
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
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.
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?
So, why is this article listed under the "patents pending" topic again?
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
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!
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?