AAC vs. OGG vs. MP3
asv108 writes "Yesterday, Apple unveiled their new music service claiming that the AAC format "combines sound quality that rivals CD." Here is a little comparison of lossy music codecs, comparing an Apple ripped AAC file with the commonly used MP3 codec and the increasingly popular OGG codec. Spectrum analysis was used to see which format did the best job of maintaining the shape of the original waveform." Wish they had WMAs in there too. And for the spoilage, it looks like OGG comes out on top.
Yes, it only tells you that most consumer PC sound hardware sucks.
I mean, by all means have opinions, but while you live in your closed-eyes, hands-over-ears, linux-is-the-only-option-and-it's-gaining-populari ty world, what are you going to acheive? fuck all, thats what, just like in real life.
And I wish you would get a clue.
There is no such thing as lossless and there never will be.
A 128kbps ogg-vorbis file mastered directly from the source will be closer to the "original" than what you find on CD today if used with a higher sampling rate.
Of course it would be useless because nobody could hear the difference anyway, so why bother.
There is only lossless compression if you define the CD as the original, which of course is pure nonsense, because the CD is also just a digital approximation, no more no less.
I mean really, first they call the G4 a supercomputer (it was actually slower than a same-price intel machine). Now this. Shameless.
oh yeah? then why does .ogg sound like shite?