ogg vs mp3

I know from lurking a while back that we've been round the block a few times with the ogg vs mp3 debate. I'm building a new site and have an uneasy feeling about squashing my sounds by a few square roots or whatever. So I'm considering ogg instead of mp3.

By my calculation, an ogg file is about 4 times larger than an mp3. I'd be interested in any opinions as to whether the sound quality warrants the extra filesize and if any oggers have found any problems with people accessing their soundfiles.

thanks

james

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>I know from lurking a while back that we've been round the block a few
>times with the ogg vs mp3 debate. I'm building a new site and have an
>uneasy feeling about squashing my sounds by a few square roots or
>whatever. So I'm considering ogg instead of mp3.
>
>By my calculation, an ogg file is about 4 times larger than an mp3.

Oh dear, such confusion. Have you read Wikipedia on this stuff?

>I'd be interested in any opinions as to whether the sound quality
>warrants the extra filesize and if any oggers have found any problems
>with people accessing their soundfiles.

This has caused so much argument here in the past that I doubt it's
worth bringing up. The short answer is that either mp3 or ogg seem
to be acceptable for posting here. If in doubt, post both.

-Carl

mopani escreveu:
> I know from lurking a while back that we've been round the block a
> few times with the ogg vs mp3 debate. I'm building a new site and
> have an uneasy feeling about squashing my sounds by a few square
> roots or whatever. So I'm considering ogg instead of mp3.
> > By my calculation, an ogg file is about 4 times larger than an mp3.

This depends on the parameters and the specific format you are using.

In general, a far as I have seen, a OGG Vorbis file is *smaller* than a MP3 file with similar perceptual quality.

But be aware: OGG is not a file format, it is a container for several media formats. For instance, one have OGG Vorbis for compressed audio _with_ some loss of quality, or OGG Flac for compression _without_ any loss of quality.

> I'd be interested in any opinions as to whether the sound quality
> warrants the extra filesize and if any oggers have found any problems
> with people accessing their soundfiles.
> > thanks
> > james
> -- '-------------------------------------------------------------------.
Hudson Lacerda <http://geocities.yahoo.com.br/hfmlacerda/>
*N�o deixe seu voto sumir! http://www.votoseguro.org/
*Ap�ie o Manifesto: http://www.votoseguro.com/alertaprofessores/

== THE WAR IN IRAQ COSTS ==
http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182
.-------------------------------------------------------------------'
--

_______________________________________________________ Abra sua conta no Yahoo! Mail: 1GB de espa�o, alertas de e-mail no celular e anti-spam realmente eficaz. http://mail.yahoo.com.br/

Hi Carl

Thanks for the reply. I don't want to cause an argument again and no I haven't read wikipedia. I'm not confused, on the contrary I'm crystal clear. I compressed a file to mp3 and it came to about 1 meg, then I compressed as an ogg vorbis and it came to about 4meg, so it's not unreasonable to ask fellow musicians whether the extra size is worth it. MMMers usually have good ears hence my question.

best
james
www.jameswyness.org.uk

----- Original Message -----
From: Carl Lumma
To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2006 11:13 PM
Subject: Re: [MMM] ogg vs mp3

>I know from lurking a while back that we've been round the block a few
>times with the ogg vs mp3 debate. I'm building a new site and have an
>uneasy feeling about squashing my sounds by a few square roots or
>whatever. So I'm considering ogg instead of mp3.
>
>By my calculation, an ogg file is about 4 times larger than an mp3.

Oh dear, such confusion. Have you read Wikipedia on this stuff?

>I'd be interested in any opinions as to whether the sound quality
>warrants the extra filesize and if any oggers have found any problems
>with people accessing their soundfiles.

This has caused so much argument here in the past that I doubt it's
worth bringing up. The short answer is that either mp3 or ogg seem
to be acceptable for posting here. If in doubt, post both.

-Carl

__________ NOD32 1.1652 (20060710) Information __________

This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

James,

I'll just reply off-list, and anything you end up finding worthwhile you can report back here...

Cheers,
Jon

mopani escreveu:
> I compressed a file to mp3 and it came to about 1
> meg, then I compressed as an ogg vorbis and it came to about 4meg, so
> it's not unreasonable to ask fellow musicians whether the extra size
> is worth it. MMMers usually have good ears hence my question.

It depends on the _actual parameters_ you are using (bitrate, lowpassfreq, resamplefreq, quality etc...).

--
'-------------------------------------------------------------------.
Hudson Lacerda <http://geocities.yahoo.com.br/hfmlacerda/>
*Não deixe seu voto sumir! http://www.votoseguro.org/
*Apóie o Manifesto: http://www.votoseguro.com/alertaprofessores/

== THE WAR IN IRAQ COSTS ==
http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182
.-------------------------------------------------------------------'
--

_______________________________________________________ Novidade no Yahoo! Mail: receba alertas de novas mensagens no seu celular. Registre seu aparelho agora! http://br.mobile.yahoo.com/mailalertas/

Something might be weird here cause they are only a little bigger , if at all, i thought

mopani wrote:
> I know from lurking a while back that we've been round the block a few times with the ogg vs mp3 debate. I'm building a new site and have an uneasy feeling about squashing my sounds by a few square roots or whatever. So I'm considering ogg instead of mp3.
>
> By my calculation, an ogg file is about 4 times larger than an mp3. I'd be interested in any opinions as to whether the sound quality warrants the extra filesize and if any oggers have found any problems with people accessing their soundfiles.
>
> thanks
>
> james
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> -- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

gee it was one of the few things me and Dan Wolf agreed upon :(

Carl Lumma wrote:
>
>
> This has caused so much argument here in the past that I doubt it's
> worth bringing up. The short answer is that either mp3 or ogg seem
> to be acceptable for posting here. If in doubt, post both.
>
> -Carl
>
>
>
>
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> -- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

It's ogg vorbis that I'm working with, using Steinberg's Wavelab to convert.

best
james
www.jameswyness.org.uk
----- Original Message -----
From: Hudson Lacerda
To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2006 11:15 PM
Subject: Re: [MMM] ogg vs mp3

mopani escreveu:
> I know from lurking a while back that we've been round the block a
> few times with the ogg vs mp3 debate. I'm building a new site and
> have an uneasy feeling about squashing my sounds by a few square
> roots or whatever. So I'm considering ogg instead of mp3.
>
> By my calculation, an ogg file is about 4 times larger than an mp3.

This depends on the parameters and the specific format you are using.

In general, a far as I have seen, a OGG Vorbis file is *smaller* than a
MP3 file with similar perceptual quality.

But be aware: OGG is not a file format, it is a container for several
media formats. For instance, one have OGG Vorbis for compressed audio
_with_ some loss of quality, or OGG Flac for compression _without_ any
loss of quality.

> I'd be interested in any opinions as to whether the sound quality
> warrants the extra filesize and if any oggers have found any problems
> with people accessing their soundfiles.
>
> thanks
>
> james
>

--
'----------------------------------------------------------.
Hudson Lacerda <http://geocities.yahoo.com.br/hfmlacerda/>
*Não deixe seu voto sumir! http://www.votoseguro.org/
*Apóie o Manifesto: http://www.votoseguro.com/alertaprofessores/

== THE WAR IN IRAQ COSTS ==
http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182
.----------------------------------------------------------'
--

_______________________________________________________
Abra sua conta no Yahoo! Mail: 1GB de espaço, alertas de e-mail no celular e anti-spam realmente eficaz.
http://mail.yahoo.com.br/

__________ NOD32 1.1652 (20060710) Information __________

This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Cheers Jon

james
www.jameswyness.org.uk
----- Original Message -----
From: Jon Szanto
To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2006 11:50 PM
Subject: Re: [MMM] ogg vs mp3

James,

I'll just reply off-list, and anything you end up finding worthwhile you can report back here...

Cheers,
Jon

__________ NOD32 1.1652 (20060710) Information __________

This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Kraig

must be peculiar to Wavelab.

james

www.jameswyness.org.uk
----- Original Message -----
From: Kraig Grady
To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2006 11:11 PM
Subject: Re: [MMM] ogg vs mp3

Something might be weird here cause they are only a little bigger , if
at all, i thought

mopani wrote:
> I know from lurking a while back that we've been round the block a few times with the ogg vs mp3 debate. I'm building a new site and have an uneasy feeling about squashing my sounds by a few square roots or whatever. So I'm considering ogg instead of mp3.
>
> By my calculation, an ogg file is about 4 times larger than an mp3. I'd be interested in any opinions as to whether the sound quality warrants the extra filesize and if any oggers have found any problems with people accessing their soundfiles.
>
> thanks
>
> james
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

__________ NOD32 1.1652 (20060710) Information __________

This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Hudson

I'm simply converting from a wave to ogg vorbis and mp3 using Wavelab, all at 16/44.1.

james
www.jameswyness.org.uk
----- Original Message -----
From: Hudson Lacerda
To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2006 11:52 PM
Subject: Re: [MMM] ogg vs mp3

mopani escreveu:
> I compressed a file to mp3 and it came to about 1
> meg, then I compressed as an ogg vorbis and it came to about 4meg, so
> it's not unreasonable to ask fellow musicians whether the extra size
> is worth it. MMMers usually have good ears hence my question.

It depends on the _actual parameters_ you are using (bitrate,
lowpassfreq, resamplefreq, quality etc...).

--
'----------------------------------------------------------.
Hudson Lacerda <http://geocities.yahoo.com.br/hfmlacerda/>
*Não deixe seu voto sumir! http://www.votoseguro.org/
*Apóie o Manifesto: http://www.votoseguro.com/alertaprofessores/

== THE WAR IN IRAQ COSTS ==
http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182
.----------------------------------------------------------'
--

_______________________________________________________
Novidade no Yahoo! Mail: receba alertas de novas mensagens no seu celular. Registre seu aparelho agora!
http://br.mobile.yahoo.com/mailalertas/

__________ NOD32 1.1652 (20060710) Information __________

This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

mopani escreveu:
> Hi Hudson

Hello James.

> > I'm simply converting from a wave to ogg vorbis and mp3 using Wavelab, all at 16/44.1.
> > james

I don't know that program. But I would expect that it have several other parameters to adjust beside sampling rate and sample size.

Have a look at this for more info:

http://directory.fsf.org/OggEnc.html
http://www.vorbis.com/faq/

Cheers,
Hudson

--
'-------------------------------------------------------------------.
Hudson Lacerda <http://geocities.yahoo.com.br/hfmlacerda/>
*Não deixe seu voto sumir! http://www.votoseguro.org/
*Apóie o Manifesto: http://www.votoseguro.com/alertaprofessores/

== THE WAR IN IRAQ COSTS ==
http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182
.-------------------------------------------------------------------'
--

_______________________________________________________ Voc� quer respostas para suas perguntas? Ou voc� sabe muito e quer compartilhar seu conhecimento? Experimente o Yahoo! Respostas !
http://br.answers.yahoo.com/

>Hi Carl
>Thanks for the reply. I don't want to cause an argument again and no
>I haven't read wikipedia. I'm not confused, on the contrary I'm
>crystal clear. I compressed a file to mp3 and it came to about 1 meg,
>then I compressed as an ogg vorbis and it came to about 4meg, so it's
>not unreasonable to ask fellow musicians whether the extra size is
>worth it. MMMers usually have good ears hence my question.

It would be even more reasonable to read any of the freely-
available references on the topic before generating a 10-message
thread here inside of an hour.

http://www.vorbis.com/faq/#lossy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mp3#Quality_of_MP3_audio

Questions like this are the 2006 equivalent to, "Hey, I heard
LPs are bigger than CDs. Would I be advised to publish my album
on vinyl? What about sound quality?"

-Carl

CL,

{you wrote...}
>It would be even more reasonable to read any of the freely-available references on the topic...

Certainly, and your links were probably helpful. However:

>Questions like this are the 2006 equivalent to ...

And you were chiding Tom Dent about attitude? Yeesh.

Cheers,
Jon (who is in favor of information over scoldings)

>>Questions like this are the 2006 equivalent to ...
>
>And you were chiding Tom Dent about attitude? Yeesh.
>
>Cheers,
>Jon (who is in favor of information over scoldings)

Ok, sorry, I crossed the line there.

-Carl

Hi James,

Yes, in my experience, the extra file size is definitely worth it
for the improvement in audio quality. That said, people with dialup
connections will appreciate the possibility of sampling your wares
with a smaller download, so it makes good sense to offer an MP3 as
well as the OGG, at least for the next few (couple of?) years.

Regards,
Yahya

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "mopani" wrote:
>
> Hi Carl
>
> Thanks for the reply. I don't want to cause an argument again and
no I haven't read wikipedia. I'm not confused, on the contrary I'm
crystal clear. I compressed a file to mp3 and it came to about 1
meg, then I compressed as an ogg vorbis and it came to about 4meg,
so it's not unreasonable to ask fellow musicians whether the extra
size is worth it. MMMers usually have good ears hence my question.
>
> best
> james
> www.jameswyness.org.uk
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Carl Lumma
...
> >I know from lurking a while back that we've been round the
block a few
> >times with the ogg vs mp3 debate. I'm building a new site and
have an
> >uneasy feeling about squashing my sounds by a few square roots
or
> >whatever. So I'm considering ogg instead of mp3.
> >
> >By my calculation, an ogg file is about 4 times larger than an
mp3.
>
> Oh dear, such confusion. Have you read Wikipedia on this stuff?
>
> >I'd be interested in any opinions as to whether the sound
quality
> >warrants the extra filesize and if any oggers have found any
problems
> >with people accessing their soundfiles.
>
> This has caused so much argument here in the past that I doubt
it's
> worth bringing up. The short answer is that either mp3 or ogg
seem
> to be acceptable for posting here. If in doubt, post both.
>
> -Carl

Hi Yahya

I hadn't thought of offering both. Thanks.

james
www.jameswyness.org.uk
----- Original Message -----
From: yahya_melb
To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 4:37 AM
Subject: Re: [MMM] ogg vs mp3

Hi James,

Yes, in my experience, the extra file size is definitely worth it
for the improvement in audio quality. That said, people with dialup
connections will appreciate the possibility of sampling your wares
with a smaller download, so it makes good sense to offer an MP3 as
well as the OGG, at least for the next few (couple of?) years.

Regards,
Yahya

New Message Search
Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.

Share feedback on the new changes to Groups

Visit Your Group .

__________ NOD32 1.1652 (20060710) Information __________

This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Thanks Hudson

I'll check this out.

james
www.jameswyness.org.uk
----- Original Message -----
From: Hudson Lacerda
To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 12:29 AM
Subject: Re: [MMM] ogg vs mp3

mopani escreveu:
> Hi Hudson

Hello James.

>
> I'm simply converting from a wave to ogg vorbis and mp3 using Wavelab, all at 16/44.1.
>
> james

I don't know that program. But I would expect that it have several other
parameters to adjust beside sampling rate and sample size.

Have a look at this for more info:

http://directory.fsf.org/OggEnc.html
http://www.vorbis.com/faq/

Cheers,
Hudson

--
'----------------------------------------------------------.
Hudson Lacerda <http://geocities.yahoo.com.br/hfmlacerda/>
*Não deixe seu voto sumir! http://www.votoseguro.org/
*Apóie o Manifesto: http://www.votoseguro.com/alertaprofessores/

== THE WAR IN IRAQ COSTS ==
http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182
.----------------------------------------------------------'
--

_______________________________________________________
Voc꠱uer respostas para suas perguntas? Ou voc꠳abe muito e quer compartilhar seu conhecimento? Experimente o Yahoo! Respostas !
http://br.answers.yahoo.com/

__________ NOD32 1.1652 (20060710) Information __________

This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Listen Carl

there are ways of dealing with things. You can either be helpful or rude. I'll think twice before asking for help again.

best
james
www.jameswyness.org.uk
----- Original Message -----
From: Carl Lumma
To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 1:05 AM
Subject: Re: [MMM] ogg vs mp3

>Hi Carl
>Thanks for the reply. I don't want to cause an argument again and no
>I haven't read wikipedia. I'm not confused, on the contrary I'm
>crystal clear. I compressed a file to mp3 and it came to about 1 meg,
>then I compressed as an ogg vorbis and it came to about 4meg, so it's
>not unreasonable to ask fellow musicians whether the extra size is
>worth it. MMMers usually have good ears hence my question.

It would be even more reasonable to read any of the freely-
available references on the topic before generating a 10-message
thread here inside of an hour.

http://www.vorbis.com/faq/#lossy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mp3#Quality_of_MP3_audio

Questions like this are the 2006 equivalent to, "Hey, I heard
LPs are bigger than CDs. Would I be advised to publish my album
on vinyl? What about sound quality?"

-Carl

__________ NOD32 1.1652 (20060710) Information __________

This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> there are ways of dealing with things. You can either be helpful or rude. I'll think twice before asking for help again.

In case you haven't discovered already (and for any other would-be
posters), the solution to your filesize issue is in the bitrate. For
mp3 and ogg, the bitrate directly correlates to both quality and
filesize: a higher bitrate means better sound and bigger files. This
parameter is unrelated to the bits or sampling rate of the original
file.

With mp3 you usually set the compression bitrate directly, and with
ogg it's usually labeled "quality," because ogg usually uses a
variable bitrate encoder.

-Chris

Hi James (and Carl),

Before this degenerates into a flame-war, i'm hoping
that by stepping into the middle of it i can help to
defuse the tension.

I don't think Carl was being especially rude, altho
i would agree that his response to you was perhaps not
as polite as it could have been. He used a vivid analogy
to make his point clear to you, and you interpreted it
as a rude put-down. (Carl, if i'm wrong and you really
were being rude to James, then please apologize, to keep
things nice around here.)

Anyway, my 2 cents about mp3-vs-ogg:

In my experience, ogg has clearly better audio quality
than mp3, and a comparison of files which i have on my
hard-drive in both formats shows that oggs are typically
just a little smaller than mp3's ... so if your criteria
for deciding are sound quality and file size, ogg wins both.

However, another consideration which i feel is important
is that mp3 is *by far* the more popular format. If you
are hoping that the legions of folks who listen on iPods
will download your music, you want to put it out there
as mp3.

Here's something i found in a debate about whether or not
ogg can be used on iPod:

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/ogg-vorbis-on-ipod-a-rebuttal-015738.php

Google will help you find much more about this!

-monz
http://tonalsoft.com
Tonescape microtonal music software

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "mopani" <mopani@...> wrote:
>
> Listen Carl
>
> there are ways of dealing with things. You can either
> be helpful or rude. I'll think twice before asking for
> help again.
>
> best
> james
> www.jameswyness.org.uk
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Carl Lumma
> To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 1:05 AM
> Subject: Re: [MMM] ogg vs mp3
>
>
> > Hi Carl
> > Thanks for the reply. I don't want to cause an argument
> > again and no I haven't read wikipedia. I'm not confused,
> > on the contrary I'm crystal clear. I compressed a file
> > to mp3 and it came to about 1 meg, then I compressed as
> > an ogg vorbis and it came to about 4meg, so it's not
> > unreasonable to ask fellow musicians whether the extra
> > size is worth it. MMMers usually have good ears hence
> > my question.
>
> It would be even more reasonable to read any of the freely-
> available references on the topic before generating a
> 10-message thread here inside of an hour.
>
> http://www.vorbis.com/faq/#lossy
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mp3#Quality_of_MP3_audio
>
> Questions like this are the 2006 equivalent to, "Hey, I heard
> LPs are bigger than CDs. Would I be advised to publish my album
> on vinyl? What about sound quality?"
>
> -Carl

On Tuesday 11 July 2006 10:32 am, monz wrote:

> Anyway, my 2 cents about mp3-vs-ogg:
>
> In my experience, ogg has clearly better audio quality
> than mp3, and a comparison of files which i have on my
> hard-drive in both formats shows that oggs are typically
> just a little smaller than mp3's ... so if your criteria
> for deciding are sound quality and file size, ogg wins both.

Sure does!

> However, another consideration which i feel is important
> is that mp3 is *by far* the more popular format. If you
> are hoping that the legions of folks who listen on iPods
> will download your music, you want to put it out there
> as mp3.

This is a worthy consideration, although I would say that popularity is a
variable quantity which can be changed through advocacy. Look at the rise of
Linux as an example.

mp3s to my ears are not worth it, especially since they are larger files at
the same audio quality.

But of course there is a trade-off when one consideres the 'popularity' thing.
I pretty much am somewhat of an ogg fanatic-fundamentalist though, truth be
told!

-Aaron.

if our concern is popularity, why would we do the type of music we do. Better to uphold what it is we really like , then there will be something for others to enjoy who are like us.
those that aren't have better places to turn

Aaron Krister Johnson wrote:
> On Tuesday 11 July 2006 10:32 am, monz wrote:
>
> >> Anyway, my 2 cents about mp3-vs-ogg:
>>
>> In my experience, ogg has clearly better audio quality
>> than mp3, and a comparison of files which i have on my
>> hard-drive in both formats shows that oggs are typically
>> just a little smaller than mp3's ... so if your criteria
>> for deciding are sound quality and file size, ogg wins both.
>> >
> Sure does!
>
> >> However, another consideration which i feel is important
>> is that mp3 is *by far* the more popular format. If you
>> are hoping that the legions of folks who listen on iPods
>> will download your music, you want to put it out there
>> as mp3.
>> >
> This is a worthy consideration, although I would say that popularity is a > variable quantity which can be changed through advocacy. Look at the rise of > Linux as an example.
>
> mp3s to my ears are not worth it, especially since they are larger files at > the same audio quality.
>
> But of course there is a trade-off when one consideres the 'popularity' thing. > I pretty much am somewhat of an ogg fanatic-fundamentalist though, truth be > told!
>
> -Aaron.
>
>
>
>
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
> -- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

>> so if your criteria
>> for deciding are sound quality and file size, ogg wins both.
>
>Sure does!

This is, in fact, false.

>> However, another consideration which i feel is important
>> is that mp3 is *by far* the more popular format. If you
>> are hoping that the legions of folks who listen on iPods
>> will download your music, you want to put it out there
>> as mp3.
>
>This is a worthy consideration, although I would say that popularity
>is a variable quantity which can be changed through advocacy. Look at
>the rise of Linux as an example.

Ogg however has already past the point of no return. It's as dead
as any format can be these days, which thankfully isn't as dead as
when formats were tied to special-purpose hardware. With the
caveat that we've been calling vorbis "ogg" here (as Hudson points
out).

>mp3s to my ears are not worth it, especially since they are larger
>files at the same audio quality.

mp3 does require higher bitrates than ogg to achieve a given
level of quality, but the difference is only a factor of 1.5, to
be generous. To displace an entrenched technology the factor
should be, what is it, 10?
Meanwhile, there are formats with better quality/size than either
ogg or mp3. Anyone unconcerned with popularity as a factor
should definitely be using them.

The one benefit to ogg is that any software which purports to
generate an ogg is probably using the best ogg encoder that exists.
For mp3, commercial software is typically bundled with a poor
quality encoder.

-Carl

On Tuesday 11 July 2006 1:15 pm, Kraig Grady wrote:
> if our concern is popularity, why would we do the type of music we do.
> Better to uphold what it is we really like , then there will be
> something for others to enjoy who are like us.
> those that aren't have better places to turn

Amen!

-A.

> Aaron Krister Johnson wrote:
> > On Tuesday 11 July 2006 10:32 am, monz wrote:
> >> Anyway, my 2 cents about mp3-vs-ogg:
> >>
> >> In my experience, ogg has clearly better audio quality
> >> than mp3, and a comparison of files which i have on my
> >> hard-drive in both formats shows that oggs are typically
> >> just a little smaller than mp3's ... so if your criteria
> >> for deciding are sound quality and file size, ogg wins both.
> >
> > Sure does!
> >
> >> However, another consideration which i feel is important
> >> is that mp3 is *by far* the more popular format. If you
> >> are hoping that the legions of folks who listen on iPods
> >> will download your music, you want to put it out there
> >> as mp3.
> >
> > This is a worthy consideration, although I would say that popularity is a
> > variable quantity which can be changed through advocacy. Look at the rise
> > of Linux as an example.
> >
> > mp3s to my ears are not worth it, especially since they are larger files
> > at the same audio quality.
> >
> > But of course there is a trade-off when one consideres the 'popularity'
> > thing. I pretty much am somewhat of an ogg fanatic-fundamentalist though,
> > truth be told!
> >
> > -Aaron.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links

Now there's a helpful reply and it lets me see that there are many things to consider in all of this. Not being the sharpest pin in the box I do appreciate help from others. Why couldn't you have said this in the first place? Anyway, let's bury the hatchet. Email me offlist if you want to slap me about a bit more.

james

www.jameswyness.org.uk
----- Original Message -----
From: Carl Lumma
To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 7:43 PM
Subject: Re: [MMM] ogg vs mp3

>> so if your criteria
>> for deciding are sound quality and file size, ogg wins both.
>
>Sure does!

This is, in fact, false.

>> However, another consideration which i feel is important
>> is that mp3 is *by far* the more popular format. If you
>> are hoping that the legions of folks who listen on iPods
>> will download your music, you want to put it out there
>> as mp3.
>
>This is a worthy consideration, although I would say that popularity
>is a variable quantity which can be changed through advocacy. Look at
>the rise of Linux as an example.

Ogg however has already past the point of no return. It's as dead
as any format can be these days, which thankfully isn't as dead as
when formats were tied to special-purpose hardware. With the
caveat that we've been calling vorbis "ogg" here (as Hudson points
out).

>mp3s to my ears are not worth it, especially since they are larger
>files at the same audio quality.

mp3 does require higher bitrates than ogg to achieve a given
level of quality, but the difference is only a factor of 1.5, to
be generous. To displace an entrenched technology the factor
should be, what is it, 10?
Meanwhile, there are formats with better quality/size than either
ogg or mp3. Anyone unconcerned with popularity as a factor
should definitely be using them.

The one benefit to ogg is that any software which purports to
generate an ogg is probably using the best ogg encoder that exists.
For mp3, commercial software is typically bundled with a poor
quality encoder.

-Carl

__________ NOD32 1.1653 (20060711) Information __________

This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

ogg sounds better .
MP3 sounds horrible to my ears.
you can take the figures and statistical analysis and it mean nothing
ogg sounds 10 times better

mopani wrote:
> Now there's a helpful reply and it lets me see that there are many things to consider in all of this. Not being the sharpest pin in the box I do appreciate help from others. Why couldn't you have said this in the first place? Anyway, let's bury the hatchet. Email me offlist if you want to slap me about a bit more.
>
> james
>
> www.jameswyness.org.uk
> ----- Original Message ----- > From: Carl Lumma > To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 7:43 PM
> Subject: Re: [MMM] ogg vs mp3
>
>
> >> so if your criteria
> >> for deciding are sound quality and file size, ogg wins both.
> >
> >Sure does!
>
> This is, in fact, false.
>
> >> However, another consideration which i feel is important
> >> is that mp3 is *by far* the more popular format. If you
> >> are hoping that the legions of folks who listen on iPods
> >> will download your music, you want to put it out there
> >> as mp3.
> >
> >This is a worthy consideration, although I would say that popularity
> >is a variable quantity which can be changed through advocacy. Look at
> >the rise of Linux as an example.
>
> Ogg however has already past the point of no return. It's as dead
> as any format can be these days, which thankfully isn't as dead as
> when formats were tied to special-purpose hardware. With the
> caveat that we've been calling vorbis "ogg" here (as Hudson points
> out).
>
> >mp3s to my ears are not worth it, especially since they are larger
> >files at the same audio quality.
>
> mp3 does require higher bitrates than ogg to achieve a given
> level of quality, but the difference is only a factor of 1.5, to
> be generous. To displace an entrenched technology the factor
> should be, what is it, 10?
> Meanwhile, there are formats with better quality/size than either
> ogg or mp3. Anyone unconcerned with popularity as a factor
> should definitely be using them.
>
> The one benefit to ogg is that any software which purports to
> generate an ogg is probably using the best ogg encoder that exists.
> For mp3, commercial software is typically bundled with a poor
> quality encoder.
>
> -Carl
>
>
>
> >
> __________ NOD32 1.1653 (20060711) Information __________
>
> This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> -- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

Here's a chart of ogg vorbis quality and bitrates. So quality 4
gives about 128 kbps.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vorbis#Technical_details

Joe

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, c.m.bryan <chrismbryan@...>
wrote:
>
> > there are ways of dealing with things. You can either be helpful
or rude. I'll think twice before asking for help again.
>
>
> In case you haven't discovered already (and for any other would-be
> posters), the solution to your filesize issue is in the bitrate.
For
> mp3 and ogg, the bitrate directly correlates to both quality and
> filesize: a higher bitrate means better sound and bigger files.
This
> parameter is unrelated to the bits or sampling rate of the original
> file.
>
> With mp3 you usually set the compression bitrate directly, and with
> ogg it's usually labeled "quality," because ogg usually uses a
> variable bitrate encoder.
>
> -Chris
>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...> wrote:
>
> if our concern is popularity, why would we do the type of
> music we do. Better to uphold what it is we really like,
> then there will be something for others to enjoy who are
> like us. those that aren't have better places to turn

At this risk of being perceived simply as a devil's advocate,
i would like to mention that audio quality is not always
necessarily of primary importance for a listener's appreciation
of good music. Witness my (and many many other listeners)
continued enjoyment of Robert Johnson's recorded output,
which has horrible mono sound from 1936 -- the emotional power
and musical quality of Johnson's performances still makes it
a very rewarding listening experience, despite the awful sound.

Of course, we composers would prefer the copies of our
music which we disseminate to the public to be of the best
possible audio quality ... but if the music is really great,
people will listen even if the audio is below par.

Another argument i have is that one should not assume that
"we" are not interested in popularity just because we're
using tunings which make our music sound a little weird.

-monz
http://tonalsoft.com
Tonescape microtonal music software

On Tuesday 11 July 2006 1:43 pm, Carl Lumma wrote:

>
> Ogg however has already past the point of no return. It's as dead
> as any format can be these days,

Another tpoint I didn't make in my earlier response to this: a quick glance at
the vorbis website, which lists many many client applications supporting ogg
vorbis, shows this to be false.

Not to mention that ogg is the official container format of Wikipedia media
files. Wikipedia is *hugely* popular, so I doubt what you said above was
designed to be anything other than provocative...so I've said enough, no more
OT flame wars.

I agree 100% with Kraig---it is so clear how much better vorbis sounds than
mp3, it's not even worthy of debate!

-Aaron.

On Tuesday 11 July 2006 1:43 pm, Carl Lumma wrote:
> >> so if your criteria
> >> for deciding are sound quality and file size, ogg wins both.
> >
> >Sure does!
>
> This is, in fact, false.

No, it's not false. Ogg at any bitrate but the very highest sounds much better
than mp3, in blind subject studues.

> Ogg however has already past the point of no return. It's as dead
> as any format can be these days, which thankfully isn't as dead as
> when formats were tied to special-purpose hardware. With the
> caveat that we've been calling vorbis "ogg" here (as Hudson points
> out).

These seem to be irrelevant subjective statements. Plenty of folks are using
vorbis.

> >mp3s to my ears are not worth it, especially since they are larger
> >files at the same audio quality.
>
> mp3 does require higher bitrates than ogg to achieve a given
> level of quality, but the difference is only a factor of 1.5, to
> be generous.

When your site hosts hundreds of compressed audio files, those 1.5 factor
differences add up quite fast.

> To displace an entrenched technology the factor
> should be, what is it, 10?

No, ~1.5 ;)

> Meanwhile, there are formats with better quality/size than either
> ogg or mp3. Anyone unconcerned with popularity as a factor
> should definitely be using them.

Ogg is popular enough to gain traction against mp3, at the same time being
vastly superior as well. No other format could fit that description.

That would be like saying use BeOS or Gnu HURD instead of Linux, which already
is a minority choice.

> The one benefit to ogg is that any software which purports to
> generate an ogg is probably using the best ogg encoder that exists.
> For mp3, commercial software is typically bundled with a poor
> quality encoder.

LAME at high bitrates seems ok...it's also not commercial for what it's worth.

Still, I'm surprised that someone with good ears would ever pick an mp3 over
an ogg at the same file size. To my ears, it's no contest--the Ogg-Vorbis
captures *much* more nuance. Since I care about how my music sounds, as well
as being mindful of disk usage, the choice is very simple.

The *only* argument I can see for using mp3 would be distribution---but that
has never stopped newer, superior formats from springing up in the past. Just
look at the proliferation of video formats on the web, and how much codec
software one has to install to view it all.

So, if people can install codecs for mpeg, AVI, Quicktime, WMV, etc. I don't
say why people complain and are so darned hot-headed and fussy about
installing Ogg Vorbis decoding ability because they already have mp3
decoding!

-Aaron.

yes bad analogue can be fun and moving.
On a subjective level MP3 has never contained anything that really got me going.
i wish it did

monz wrote:
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...> wrote:
> >> if our concern is popularity, why would we do the type of
>> music we do. Better to uphold what it is we really like,
>> then there will be something for others to enjoy who are
>> like us. those that aren't have better places to turn
>> >
>
> At this risk of being perceived simply as a devil's advocate,
> i would like to mention that audio quality is not always
> necessarily of primary importance for a listener's appreciation
> of good music. Witness my (and many many other listeners)
> continued enjoyment of Robert Johnson's recorded output,
> which has horrible mono sound from 1936 -- the emotional power
> and musical quality of Johnson's performances still makes it
> a very rewarding listening experience, despite the awful sound.
>
> Of course, we composers would prefer the copies of our
> music which we disseminate to the public to be of the best
> possible audio quality ... but if the music is really great,
> people will listen even if the audio is below par.
>
> Another argument i have is that one should not assume that
> "we" are not interested in popularity just because we're
> using tunings which make our music sound a little weird.
>
>
> -monz
> http://tonalsoft.com
> Tonescape microtonal music software
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> -- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

>ogg sounds better .
> MP3 sounds horrible to my ears.
> you can take the figures and statistical analysis and it mean nothing
> ogg sounds 10 times better

Oh really?

I extracted an excerpt from Chris Mohr's excellent
From The Realm Of The Shadow album (disc 1 track 15).
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00005A8A7/

I encoded it with ogg q=8 and LAME --preset extreme. The
files came out to be 437 and 427 KB. I then converted
them back to wave using Adobe Audition 2.

http://lumma.org/stuff/funwithmp3.zip
(a little under 7 MB)

So this contains 3 files. The original from the CD,
and the mp3- and ogg-ified versions. Which one(s)
do you prefer?

-Carl

>Ogg at any bitrate but the very highest sounds much
>better than mp3, in blind subject studues.

I guess I don't understand why anyone would use bitrates
lower than needed for transparency. In 3 years network
bandwidth will be ample to handle them (it is already for
most users savvy enough to play an ogg) and, d'oh!, all
your music sounds like crap because you encoded it for
dialup. Hard drive space is also expanding faster than
you or anyone else can write music.

Low bitrates hurt my brain. Especially for folks
interested in the subtleties of intonation, I can't see
the appeal.

-Carl

>> >> so if your criteria
>> >> for deciding are sound quality and file size, ogg wins both.
>> >
>> >Sure does!
>>
>> This is, in fact, false.
>
>No, it's not false. Ogg at any bitrate but the very highest sounds
>much better than mp3, in blind subject studues.

That's not what the above says.

>> >mp3s to my ears are not worth it, especially since they are larger
>> >files at the same audio quality.
>>
>> mp3 does require higher bitrates than ogg to achieve a given
>> level of quality, but the difference is only a factor of 1.5, to
>> be generous.
>
>When your site hosts hundreds of compressed audio files, those
>1.5 factor differences add up quite fast.

I have 22 GB of "transparent" mp3s. If I'd used ogg instead, and
there's no evidence ogg achieves transparency at a lower bitrate
than mp3 (but let's assume it does), I could have saved... an
insignificant amount of space.

-Carl

At 12:13 PM 7/11/2006, you wrote:
>Now there's a helpful reply and it lets me see that there are many
>things to consider in all of this. Not being the sharpest pin in the
>box I do appreciate help from others. Why couldn't you have said this
>in the first place? Anyway, let's bury the hatchet. Email me offlist
>if you want to slap me about a bit more.

It's not worth fussing about. Aaron and others post ogg here,
so most (I assume) listeners are cool with it. If you want to
use mp3, try LAME

http://lame.sourceforge.net

Holy cow, I see that WaveLab uses LAME. See if you can find
any options there. What you want something called "--preset standard".
Sometimes software which uses LAME doesn't offer this preset,
however. It also may be called something like 'variable bitrate
average 192Kbps'.

Musepack is the encoder people like Aaron should check out. It
isn't popular, but hey, it achieves transparency at much lower
bitrates than ogg or mp3, and it's GNU LGPL.

http://www.musepack.net

I have a tutorial on mp3 encoding here

http://lumma.org/stuff/RippingGood.txt

-Carl

On Tuesday 11 July 2006 4:42 pm, Carl Lumma wrote:
> >ogg sounds better .
> > MP3 sounds horrible to my ears.
> > you can take the figures and statistical analysis and it mean nothing
> > ogg sounds 10 times better
>
> Oh really?
>
> I extracted an excerpt from Chris Mohr's excellent
> From The Realm Of The Shadow album (disc 1 track 15).
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00005A8A7/
>
> I encoded it with ogg q=8 and LAME --preset extreme. The
> files came out to be 437 and 427 KB. I then converted
> them back to wave using Adobe Audition 2.
>
> http://lumma.org/stuff/funwithmp3.zip
> (a little under 7 MB)
>
> So this contains 3 files. The original from the CD,
> and the mp3- and ogg-ified versions. Which one(s)
> do you prefer?

A fairer test would be to do ogg -q 5 vs. lame --preset standard (or whatever
gives a similar size). I don't think Kraig was claiming that at high bitrates
anyone could tell anything from one another. But I won't speak for him.

i have dial up so it would be a bit time consuming at the moment

Aaron Krister Johnson wrote:
> On Tuesday 11 July 2006 4:42 pm, Carl Lumma wrote:
> >>> ogg sounds better .
>>> MP3 sounds horrible to my ears.
>>> you can take the figures and statistical analysis and it mean nothing
>>> ogg sounds 10 times better
>>> >> Oh really?
>>
>> I extracted an excerpt from Chris Mohr's excellent
>> From The Realm Of The Shadow album (disc 1 track 15).
>> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00005A8A7/
>>
>> I encoded it with ogg q=8 and LAME --preset extreme. The
>> files came out to be 437 and 427 KB. I then converted
>> them back to wave using Adobe Audition 2.
>>
>> http://lumma.org/stuff/funwithmp3.zip
>> (a little under 7 MB)
>>
>> So this contains 3 files. The original from the CD,
>> and the mp3- and ogg-ified versions. Which one(s)
>> do you prefer?
>> >
> A fairer test would be to do ogg -q 5 vs. lame --preset standard (or whatever > gives a similar size). I don't think Kraig was claiming that at high bitrates > anyone could tell anything from one another. But I won't speak for him.
>
>
>
>
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
> -- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

On Tuesday 11 July 2006 4:14 pm, Kraig Grady wrote:
> yes bad analogue can be fun and moving.
> On a subjective level MP3 has never contained anything that really got
> me going.
> i wish it did

Well, ogg encoding algorithms handle the noise floor as a separate signal in a
way that reminds people of the warmth of old analog, whereas mp3 algorithms
tend to get that kind of glassy, warbled distortion.

Another thing is that mp3 can only encode source audio wavs only up to 48khz,
whereas ogg can do up to I believe handle source wavs up to 200khz. Many
individuals, including I believe Geoff Emerick, producer for the Beatles'
"Sgt. Pepper", claim that there is a supersonic audio quality that happens
well beyoond the threshold of upper frequency audibility. It's nice to know
that there is a lossy format that could handle that if one so desired.

-Aaron.

there is something that is difficult for me about MP3 just like i have trouble with all the sound designer thing in Logic which simulates room revere.
thousand of choices , but when it comes down to it, i always take if off.
So i think it has to do with the way it encodes

Aaron Krister Johnson wrote:
> On Tuesday 11 July 2006 4:14 pm, Kraig Grady wrote:
> >> yes bad analogue can be fun and moving.
>> On a subjective level MP3 has never contained anything that really got
>> me going.
>> i wish it did
>> >
> Well, ogg encoding algorithms handle the noise floor as a separate signal in a > way that reminds people of the warmth of old analog, whereas mp3 algorithms > tend to get that kind of glassy, warbled distortion.
>
> Another thing is that mp3 can only encode source audio wavs only up to 48khz, > whereas ogg can do up to I believe handle source wavs up to 200khz. Many > individuals, including I believe Geoff Emerick, producer for the Beatles' > "Sgt. Pepper", claim that there is a supersonic audio quality that happens > well beyoond the threshold of upper frequency audibility. It's nice to know > that there is a lossy format that could handle that if one so desired.
>
> -Aaron.
>
>
>
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> -- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

Hey,

In the interest of making this war scientific and hopefully putting it to
rest, but feeling it at least slightly on-topic enough (after all, we do
distribute most of our creations in compressed audio), I too created a .wav
file experiment.

~13 seconds of John Coltrane Quartet, in both ogg and mp3 (I won't say which
is which until later). Using the vanilla command line for both oggenc and
lame gave me file sizes of;

204381 bytes for coltrane.mp3
198452 bytes for coltrane.ogg

If I made oggenc -q4 it made the file slightly larger than coltrane.mp3, so I
thought it fair to give the mp3 the slightly larger file size advantage it
would need against the ogg file. I imported both into Audacity, and converted
them into a single wav file.

The question--which do you prefer and why? Can you hear a difference?

http://www.akjmusic.com/audio/coltrane_test.zip

-Aaron.

On Tuesday 11 July 2006 4:42 pm, Carl Lumma wrote:
> >ogg sounds better .
> > MP3 sounds horrible to my ears.
> > you can take the figures and statistical analysis and it mean nothing
> > ogg sounds 10 times better
>
> Oh really?
>
> I extracted an excerpt from Chris Mohr's excellent
> From The Realm Of The Shadow album (disc 1 track 15).
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00005A8A7/
>
> I encoded it with ogg q=8 and LAME --preset extreme. The
> files came out to be 437 and 427 KB. I then converted
> them back to wave using Adobe Audition 2.
>
> http://lumma.org/stuff/funwithmp3.zip
> (a little under 7 MB)
>
> So this contains 3 files. The original from the CD,
> and the mp3- and ogg-ified versions. Which one(s)
> do you prefer?
>
> -Carl
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

>>When your site hosts hundreds of compressed audio files, those
>>1.5 factor differences add up quite fast.
>
>I have 22 GB of "transparent" mp3s. If I'd used ogg instead, and
>there's no evidence ogg achieves transparency at a lower bitrate
>than mp3 (but let's assume it does), I could have saved... an
>insignificant amount of space.

Hey, this is new since last I looked at this stuff:

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=36465

So it appears that aoTuV vorbis really is nearly artifact-free
at 185 Kbps, and that it beats musepack at that rate. I guess
ogg development is healthy after all. In my experience, LAME
needs about 220 Kbps for transparency in classical music (though
that's with 3.96... it looks like they may have shaved 10-15
Kbps off that with subsequent releases, but I haven't tried them).
So that means for transparency, ogg gives < a factor of 1.2
advantage over mp3.

I'm quite impressed by aoTuV, and it makes me reconsider ogg.
However, I still don't know of a replaygain implementation
that's any good... but I should look, maybe there's been progress
there too.

I think, though, that given the state of things, I'll be doing
everything in flac in the near future.

-Carl

Oh, stop, please!

This is not a list about audio processing or psychoacoustics...
(I guess that different music styles may be affected in different ways with different parameters, encoders, decoders and so. Listeners may be subject to placeb effect when judging. Yet, there are also political issues behind format choices etc.)

Yours sincerely,
Hudson Lacerda

_______________________________________________________ Novidade no Yahoo! Mail: receba alertas de novas mensagens no seu celular. Registre seu aparelho agora! http://br.mobile.yahoo.com/mailalertas/

At 03:37 PM 7/11/2006, you wrote:
>Hey,
>
>In the interest of making this war scientific and hopefully putting it to
>rest, but feeling it at least slightly on-topic enough (after all, we do
>distribute most of our creations in compressed audio), I too created a .wav
>file experiment.
>
>~13 seconds of John Coltrane Quartet, in both ogg and mp3 (I won't say which
>is which until later). Using the vanilla command line for both oggenc and
>lame gave me file sizes of;
>
>204381 bytes for coltrane.mp3
>198452 bytes for coltrane.ogg
>
>If I made oggenc -q4 it made the file slightly larger than coltrane.mp3, so I
>thought it fair to give the mp3 the slightly larger file size advantage it
>would need against the ogg file. I imported both into Audacity, and converted
>them into a single wav file.
>
>The question--which do you prefer and why? Can you hear a difference?
>
>http://www.akjmusic.com/audio/coltrane_test.zip
>
>-Aaron.

I just listened to the cymbals, since that's the acid test of
lossy encoders, and clearly the second part of the file sounded
better.

Did you try my comparo?

-Carl

At 03:03 PM 7/11/2006, you wrote:
>Oh, stop, please!

What can I say... I tried to prevent it.

-Carl

On Tuesday 11 July 2006 4:46 pm, Carl Lumma wrote:
> >Ogg at any bitrate but the very highest sounds much
> >better than mp3, in blind subject studues.
>
> I guess I don't understand why anyone would use bitrates
> lower than needed for transparency.

Believe it or not, some people (Margo for instance, and Kraig) still use
dialup.

Even at transparant rates, ogg wins in compression. Why waste *any* space,
however small?

-A.

Hi Carl,

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma wrote:
[snip]
> Meanwhile, there are formats with better quality/size than either
> ogg or mp3.
[snip]

Cool! What are they? and "Where d'ya get it?"

Regards,
Yahya

On Tuesday 11 July 2006 7:00 pm, Carl Lumma wrote:
> I just listened to the cymbals, since that's the acid test of
> lossy encoders, and clearly the second part of the file sounded
> better.
>
> Did you try my comparo?

Yes. I can't tell them apart. The differences are so small as to be barely
noticeable at all, at least to my ears.

I think these things are an issue at low or medium bitrates. I can definitely
tell an ogg from an mp3 at say ~128kbps. And these things are an issue if you
care about high compression ratios for medium to low bitrates while
preserving quality. Transparency is certainly achievable earlier on in
smaller files in ogg, I think you agree...

-Aaron.

On Tuesday 11 July 2006 7:00 pm, Carl Lumma wrote:
> At 03:37 PM 7/11/2006, you wrote:
> >Hey,
> >
> >In the interest of making this war scientific and hopefully putting it to
> >rest, but feeling it at least slightly on-topic enough (after all, we do
> >distribute most of our creations in compressed audio), I too created a
> > .wav file experiment.
> >
> >~13 seconds of John Coltrane Quartet, in both ogg and mp3 (I won't say
> > which is which until later). Using the vanilla command line for both
> > oggenc and lame gave me file sizes of;
> >
> >204381 bytes for coltrane.mp3
> >198452 bytes for coltrane.ogg
> >
> >If I made oggenc -q4 it made the file slightly larger than coltrane.mp3,
> > so I thought it fair to give the mp3 the slightly larger file size
> > advantage it would need against the ogg file. I imported both into
> > Audacity, and converted them into a single wav file.
> >
> >The question--which do you prefer and why? Can you hear a difference?
> >
> >http://www.akjmusic.com/audio/coltrane_test.zip
> >
> >-Aaron.
>
> I just listened to the cymbals, since that's the acid test of
> lossy encoders, and clearly the second part of the file sounded
> better.

<drum rolls> and that was the .............. OGG!

>> I just listened to the cymbals, since that's the acid test of
>> lossy encoders, and clearly the second part of the file sounded
>> better.
>
><drum rolls> and that was the .............. OGG!

Oh yes, I knew that.

-Carl

>> I just listened to the cymbals, since that's the acid test of
>> lossy encoders, and clearly the second part of the file sounded
>> better.
>>
>> Did you try my comparo?
>
>Yes. I can't tell them apart. The differences are so small as to be barely
>noticeable at all, at least to my ears.

Listen to the harpsichord around 0:04. Hear any difference?

-Carl