Slashdot Mirror


Ogg beats MP3 & The Rest In Listening Test

Nice2Cats writes "The Ogg Vorbis format came out far ahead of MP3, MP3Pro, RealAudio Surround, and Windows Media 9 Beta in a comparison of different audio formats by Germany's respected computer magazine c't. More than 6,000 people took part in the test. Heise says Ogg's dominance was most pronounced with 64 kBit/sec samples; the full magazine article (out on Monday) mentions that in pre-tests, some people actually mistook the 128 kBit/sec Ogg samples for the uncoded version. Let's hear it for those strangely named open source file formats!"

10 of 501 comments (clear)

  1. Fullscale deployment by pajor · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think we need to promote fullscale deployment of ogg vorbis. Windows Media, Quicktime, all of the major players should be equipped to play it. With Microsoft pushing WMA, Windows Media support is probably going to have to come from third parties. Ogg Vorbis playing hardware should be cheaper than proprietary format playing hardware, but I doubt anyone will release a player that DOESNT play mp3s.

    The best way to support ogg is probably to rip your entire cd collection as ogg; pull your mp3s off kazaa and share away. This action might possibly be illegal depending on your cd collection, but if the entirety of Slashdot stopped sharing mp3s and started sharing oggs, I bet the public would take notice and it would take off. Although, the media companies would probably take notice too.

    I do fear if ogg vorbis becomes to popular, patent holders will pop up (like the jpeg dilemma) and start wanting money. Ah well.

    --
    Gnuyen
  2. Re:This test is flawed, OGG may not be better by OrangeSpyderMan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You are mistaken. It's Windows Media that does that. And anyway, this is a subjective test - what matters is what people say sounds better. You could also say the test was flwad cos they only chose people who liked listening to music with tin cans on their ears - it just wouldn't matter!

    --
    Try NetBSD... safe,straightforward,useful.
  3. Ogg is only discernably better at lower bitrates.. by altgrr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As the article says, despite all this hailing Ogg as the most wonderful format under the sun (as has been done quite a bit recently), look more carefully at what the article has to say: (translation follows)

    Especially at 64kbps Ogg Vorbis won over convincingly, and left the competition behind. From 128kbit/s, the noticeable difference between the formats became significantly lower, such that WMA, RealAudio, MP3Pro and also MP3, to most ears, was difficult to differentiate.

    Yes, Ogg is good for low bitrates, and it'd be great to see it adopted as a streaming format, but I don't think there's really a need to convert to Ogg yet.

    --


    Like car accidents, most hardware problems are due to driver error.
  4. I actually scored the 64kbps sample above.. by rseuhs · · Score: 5, Insightful
    ... the "original" wav. (The wav was at 3rd place, ogg first, mp3pro second)

    (No, I did not know which sample was which. I also know not enough about those codecs to recognize artifacts etc.)

    Actually c't has conducted listening tests some years ago (but only with mp3, they were interested in CD-music vs. compressed) and mp3 was found *better* than what is on the CD.

    It's probably the annoying frequencies that are filtered away in compression...

    My point?

    Well, there are a couple:

    • ogg is better than mp3 ;-)
    • There is no such thing as the "original", the material on CD is also a digitalized, sampled version of the real thing. A 256kbps ogg created with a higher sampling rate would probably be closer to the real "original" than what is currently shipped on CD.
    • Whatever is on the CD is not sacred, if my ogg that takes only 1/20th of space sounds better for me, I don't see the slightest problem. Who knows, maybe some bands run their stuff through a codec before it is put on CD to make it sound better? (Oh my a can feel the hatred of audiophiles against me right now...)
    1. Re:I actually scored the 64kbps sample above.. by FauxPasIII · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >> Surely "How much does this sound like the original?" is a better test than "Which sounds best?"

      Only if the goal of the developer is to create a codec which is closer to the original, rather than one that sounds great. I'd call that one a judgment call, actually.

      --
      25% Funny, 25% Insightful, 25% Informative, 25% Troll
  5. The problem by Mr_Silver · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The problem I see here is that whilst Ogg may be better than MP3, it is not significantly better to get people to move over to it.

    As many companies have found out, if you're going to compete with someone who has a large share of the market - your product will fail if there is no absolutely compelling i-must-have-it reason for making the switch (and enduring all the recoding of your, possibly, hundreds of MP3 files).

    For me at the moment:

    • 128 kbps sampling is by no means perfect, but (for me) it's acceptable
    • There are hardware based MP3 players out there
    • All my friends encode MP3's - not one uses Ogg.
    • I have a large number of MP3's - it would be a serious slog to re-encode them
    • The amount of Ogg files available out there pale into comparison with MP3.
    In short, like the vast majority of people out there (who don't read slashdot and never have heard of Ogg), going to Ogg would be a step backwards for them. They'd have less choice, less options and would be isolating themselves from everyone else.

    In a situation like that, you have to have a pretty damned good reason for going through all that - and as of yet, for the common man, there isn't such a reason.

    Doesn't mean I won't keep watching Ogg though ...

    --
    Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
    1. Re:The problem by GigsVT · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In short, like the vast majority of people out there (who don't read slashdot and never have heard of Ogg), going to Ogg would be a step backwards for them. They'd have less choice, less options and would be isolating themselves from everyone else.

      Not to be rude, but what the fuck are you talking about? How much trouble is it to download and install another plugin for their players? No one has to reencode anything they don't want to. The migration to Ogg can be like the migration from old UNIX compress (.Z) to gzip (.gz). There is no reason someone can't have both at the same time.

      Most people will probably be introduced to Ogg when they go to a streaming site, and it says "hey you need to get this player (or plugin) from here to listen, don't worry, it's free, click OK a few times". Then when they see .ogg files on the net, they will double click them, and everything will work automagically.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
  6. Re:Time To Switch by CoolVibe · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Do you encode your mp3s with mp3? I guess not. Do you see my point?

    Don't convert your mp3s. Keep 'em. From now on, if you rip a new cd, use Ogg.

    Maybe on a boring afternoon you could re-rip your already ripped cd's to Ogg and send the old mp3s to the bitbucket.

    Fraunhofer's mp3pro doesn't have mp3->mp3pro converters. Why should Ogg Vorbis need that?

  7. What ogg is not... by BitGeek · · Score: 5, Insightful

    .. is a standard. AAC may not be as good as Ogg, but I'm encoding to it in my application because it is part of the MPEG-4 standard.

    The Ogg team should get on the MPEG bodies and start lobbying to be included. This is the only reason MP3 was able to be as popular as it is-- it was a clear standard. Ogg should do the same.

    IF, for instance, it had been part of Mpeg4 then any of the hundreds of thousands of cellphones, computers, pdas, musicplayers, stereos, tvs, DVD players, etc, that come out over the next 10 years that make use of the MPEG4 standard would be able to play back ogg content.

    The last major standard like this was MPEG2 (and MP3 is part of MPEG1) so these are not things that happen often, and companies are highly unlikely to add playback support for something that's not part of a standard.

    Phones will be MP3 capable going forward, but not ogg capable unless it becomes at least a defacto standard-- getting it into the Profile 0 of MPEG4 would have accomplished this....

    This is not to bash the Ogg developers, just to give a recommendation for going forward.

    --
    Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23/ 1816257
  8. Re:Ogg is only discernably better at lower bitrate by Chris+Johnson · · Score: 5, Insightful
    No. All they're saying is, they didn't use anyone capable of distinguishing much in the way of sound quality past a certain point. It proves nothing.

    I run an indie mastering house with room treatment and scary homebrew monitors, and I've distinguished 256K mp3 from 16 bit AIFF in an ABX double-blind test. I've also got very close to distinguishing dithered 16 bit from truncated 16 bit audio (only about 94% confidence- my ear gave out after about 10 trials! Fatigue!). Ogg Vorbis' strengths are absolutely relevant for high bit depths.

    In fact I've done an objective study on it- feeding encoders a 'torture test' sample, subtracting the spectrogram of it from the spectrogram of the original and looking at what was changed. Across the board, Ogg Vorbis does better than mp3 at maintaining both tonal purity and transient accuracy. Pretty much ALL mp3 encoders at ANY bit rate have to make a choice between these qualities, Ogg consistently manages to preserve both at once. At high bit rates it combines the tonal purity of BladeEnc with the transient aggression of Fraunhofer, while both of those encoders make a mess of each other's strong points at any bit rate- Fraunhofer never sounds really tonally convincing, and Blade can't do transients at any bit rate.

    I would say that Ogg Vorbis is BEST at really high bit rates. You can always strip it if you want lower bit rates out of it...