Burning Ogg Vorbis tracks to audio CD

In my opinion, I find MP3's quality to be very respectable. The sound is still more than clear enough for the music to be enjoyable, and the broad hardware support is definitely an advantage. I often listen to music outside of the computer, either on a portable device or on a full-size system, and it's actually handy to be able to put many songs (more than a regular audio disc) on a single disc. I also listen to normal audio CDs, but for downloaded music, which is in huge majority in MP3, hardware players that support that format are nice. If another format was to be as widely supported by hardware, and its sound would also be great (i.e. not WMA), I might consider switching to it.

It's been a while since I've followed the codec scene, but wasn't Ogg Vorbis actually inferior to MP3 at high bitrates (and superior at low ones)? MPC was considered better than those two at high bitrates, and even achieving it at a smaller filesize. If this still stands, shouldn't you OGG-users switch to MPC?

The easy solution to satisfy everyone (or almost) in the music sharing scene would be to provide everything in lossless. This would make the dial-up users cry, and would somehow waste bandwith, but at least everybody would have the power to select his encoder and settings of choice. Or, another way would be to have people buy their own original albums and do their own game rips. This, in fact, might also make them more appreciative of the music, and not go nuts about how free (and mostly illegal) music files may not sound 100% perfect.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Well, when I started using Musepack more on my FTP server, people kind of freaked out. Change is scary and I think that even here, audiophiles are still in the minority. And even the ones we do have would probably get laughed at by the really crazy ones. OggDrop is a perfectly good little program (and the command-line oggenc is really great--it has built in wildcard support which mppenc lacks), but if you've never heard of it, you can't know that.

And yeah, listen tests still indicate that Musepack provides better sound at higher bitrates than both MP3 and Ogg. But at higher bitrates, the difference is negligible to the point where it doesn't matter for a large majority of listeners.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

It's kinda pointless to say that OGG "sounds better" than MP3. Sure, it sounds better at equal bitrates, but then the issue isnt so much sound quality than file size.

And yeah, in our 100$ 350GB HD era, people don't care about file sizes as much as they used to.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

I don't mean purely "same quality lower filesize", as that *doesn't* mean that it sounds better.

I've seen some great Hydrogen Audio forum threads where they've weighed it up- and Ogg Vorbis around quality 6-8 can closely match what a CD sounds like, but the VBR Mp3's simply aren't quite as good.

Why's that a big deal, when the difference is small? It isn't so much. But when you could use one of two encoders, and one's better- why use the other. Vorbis is free and open-source which as I said should appeal to us "free"-spirited individuals, and Ogg players are numerous in number now.

There's only a handful of real reasons to use MP3 as I see it, and they mainly are laziness or ignorance, or some sort of 'tradition'.

Quote:

It's been a while since I've followed the codec scene, but wasn't Ogg Vorbis actually inferior to MP3 at high bitrates (and superior at low ones)?

The way I understand it, Vorbis uses a 'clever' version of VBR which basically varies the bitrate incrementally. Not to be confused with VBR MP3, which varies in blocks of 32 (i.e. uses 192 kbps one second, 224 the next), Ogg varies the bitrate constantly to get the balance right between quality and filesize. That's how they're smaller than MP3.

As for quality, Vorbis beats MP3 at any bitrate (well, except if the Ogg was encoded at a really low bitrate and the MP3 was encoded at a really high one, obviously), from some excellent reviews I've seen.

The reason they produce different quality (and sounding) encoded files is that the codec filters are different, the psychoacoustics are different etc. They're not merely different forms of compression like ZIP or RAR, where smaller filesize is the only means of measuring. 10 KB filesize here and there is irrelevant, as Niki points out (although I don't think a 350 GB harddisk would hold my collection of VGM in lossless formats).


To qualify, let me say I don't make such statements lightly- if you look at old topics on my message board, you'll see I was once (not so long ago) very anti-Vorbis. It's taken a lot of research and really, there's no time I've seen where anyone's claimed MP3 was a superior format (at least, not satisfactorily), it's always the reverse.

It took a long time to convince me. But generally speaking, I only see people using MP3 over Ogg due to MP3 players they have. That's pretty weak.
I've found no real barriers to using it- WinAmp plays the files, Ogg players exist, etc.

Of course, if I want to burn a MP3 CD, I still do it, and don't have nightmares over the minimal quality reduction, or anything. But my point is that when *I* rip and when *I* convert my WAV's that I create to Ogg, I do it because I want everyone else to hear my music as close quality-wise to the original source file, without being lossless itself.

Of course of course, codecs change quality-wise all the time. But I haven't (yet) heard any news to change my mind.

EDIT: In fact, http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/...howtopic=50750

- Spike

I was speaking idiomatically.

Interesting. Must say I wasn't aware it wasn't just a filesize issue. =/

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Basically, that's what I used to think too, which is why I'm trying not to be uppity (especially since it's still somewhat subjective).

It doesn't sound like many people in the VGM community (and I'm not talking about leechers, but respected members) think very hard about this stuff, which is disappointing to say the least.

- Spike

FELIPE NO

I've already stated my reasons (MP3 is not "perfect", but it still has very good quality and is the most practical format so far), so I won't continue to make my fingers go around it, but what I'd like to hear about is how you would compare OGG vs. MPC, since MPC is superior from what I know and I don't see why you would favor OGG over it.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

I'm not an audiophile on any level, but I do listen to a lot of music on a lot of different devices in a lot of different places. At least part of this discussion seems to be about why the masses do what they do, so my opinion may have some relevance...do with it what you will.

I want music files that sound good and will play with minimal fuss wherever I go. The statement,

"Wow, these tunes sound pretty good (a lot better than the cassettes I grew up with), and I can play them on my computer, my portable, my Xbox, my work computer, etc."

is much more valuable to me than the statement,

"Wow, I've got some tunes back home that someone with more finely tuned hearing than I have or someone in a side-by-side blind test would, if they had great hardware, identify as better-sounding than those crazy MP3s the uninformed masses use. Of course, during normal listening, I can't tell the difference, and of course my Xbox doesn't play them, my portable doesn't play them, and my work computer doesn't play them...but, boy, do I feel cool when I'm listening to those files on my home computer."

It's a bit like the next-gen DVD formats for me. I have a PS3, and I don't deny that BluRay movies look better on my TV than standard DVDs. Am I going to go re-buy all the DVDs I currently own? Not as long as I have some player that will play them. At some point, the difference between great content in good fidelity and great content in great fidelity just isn't important to me.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Rimo

I've already stated my reasons (MP3 is not "perfect", but it still has very good quality and is the most practical format so far), so I won't continue to make my fingers go around it, but what I'd like to hear about is how you would compare OGG vs. MPC, since MPC is superior from what I know and I don't see why you would favor OGG over it.

I'm in the Musepack camp, but I think part of the reason that Musepack isn't plowing past Ogg is just that there's too damn many different formats out there. Musepack may be technically superior to Ogg, but I believe Ogg has been around longer. On top of that, to be able to tell the difference, you'd have to have some really serious equipment and something bordering bat hearing. As far as I'm concerned though, the two are interchangeable right now--I wouldn't be any more likely to turn down a q 6.0 Ogg file than I would be to turn down a Standard Musepack file. To be perfectly honest, the two sound the same to me, and my playback equipment is quite good.

Jaraph, you're a member of the vast majority of people who use a digital audio format. The majority rules, as it usually does, and so MP3 is still alive and kicking. I'm pretty much okay with Lame VBR MP3s though, so I'm not really complaining.

This is sort of veering away from what I've been saying so far, but another benefit over MP3s aside from psychoacoustics and filesize for both Ogg and Musepack is the fact that they don't use the ID3v2 metadata standard, which is starting to show its age. I may be more obsessive-compulsive than some of you, but metadata is pretty important to me, and ID3v2 takes friggin' forever to apply compared to APEv2.

I'm rambling, though, so that's it for me for now.

Most amazing jew boots

Forgive me if I'm showing my ignorance Rimo (and others), but I haven't heard anywhere that Musepack is superior to Ogg Vorbis.

To be fair, I haven't heard much about MPC though. I'm fairly sure the test that made me choose Ogg included MPC though.

- Spike

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

I believe the listening test in question is this one.

There's also a newer one over at soundexpert.info, but the way they rated that one seems strange to me. They did it on a point scale where anything over 5 points is, beyond all reasonable doubt, transparent. You would think that going any higher than 5 points would serve no purpose as far as recommending one codec over another goes. I don't know where those higher numbers are even coming from really, but the way they explained it doesn't account for anything over 5.

Most amazing jew boots

Yep, that's the one. Only problem is it's out of date. I personally want to do my own listening test.. LAME hasn't come so far since then (as opposed to Ogg with aoTuv's encoders), so I can be fairly confident Vorbis is still in the lead. Still, that's why you run tests, otherwise it's well, subjective

Testing is confusing though. And as you say, subjectivity can be a problem when rating scales become like that. If you look at ABX (double-blind) tests, 5 is 5- perfect, exactly like the CD audio. There can't be 6/5 or whatever. 5/5 would be transparent.

If you are good enough, when you do an ABX you'll rate the original WAV file 5/5, anyway. Or lucky enough

- Spike

I was speaking idiomatically.

Spikey, I agree that Vorbis is the better format, but the simple thing is that MP3 is ubiquitous and considered "good enough" by most. And while you assert that it is not a filesize/quality issue, in the majority of cases that's exactly the question: How many bits does this codec take to represent audio with audible transparency? MP3's approximation of human psychoacoustics is good enough to produce humanly-transparent audio, and so is Vorbis' model. (Although, there are some uncommon samples that will make either codec artifact at just about any bitrate.)

Additionally, while there may be many Vorbis-compatible players, people who have invested hundreds of dollars in portable or car-based MP3 players will not be so eager to make yet another pricey purchase just so they can listen to Vorbis files. Even some Vorbis-compatible hardware players don't have full compability... I know for sure that certain iRiver players can't play Ogg Vorbis files that contain frames larger than a certain value (I can't remember right now... I think it may be any frame > 320Kbps, or maybe even 160Kbps). You, Spikey, might care to use Vorbis, but honestly you cannot expect everyone else to be so eager about it, just as I can't expect everyone to care enough to use my audio ripping guide. Some people just want their music on their hard drive fast, quality be damned.

Also, I find it hard to believe that, knowing all of this you do about Vorbis, you did not realize that all codecs are (and indeed must be) decoded to get at the audio data inside. Saying Vorbis -> WAV degrades quality is like saying a ZIPed .DOC -> .DOC degrades the quality of the Word document. And it would also imply that simply playing an MP3 degrades the quality of the audio going to your speakers (since decoding converts the audio to raw PCM, the kind of data that WAV files contain, and the only kind of data your soundcard can understand)... which makes no sense.

Also, I'd like to clarify the explanation someone made, that while correct in result, is totally incorrect in process. Re-encoding loses quality based on the simple principle that continuously approximating (encoding an MP3) based on each previous approximation (the existing MP3) will result in an increasing deviation from the original (CD/WAV). Just like playing "telephone", or faxing faxes. The explanation that one encode removes inaudible data, thus other encodes must find other data to remove (with the implication that it will be audible) is completely false. I suppose a better way to describe lossy compression, to avoid such confusion, is that it represents data in an approximate fashion such that it will likely never be exactly equal to the original. There is really no active "removal", it's more of a... selective, approximate preservation.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Yeah. It (the reencoded file) doesn't care about the original source data's quality, but rather the current copy's quality, if that makes sense.

Moguta, I never said "everyone's a moron for using MP3", I'm just wonderign why almost noone uses Vorbis. I totally understand why people use MP3, I just think they're all poor reasons. It's just as easy if not easier to use Ogg- I haven't got my head around MP3 switches yet, and I like to think I understand this sort of thing.

Quote:

You, Spikey, might care to use Vorbis, but honestly you cannot expect everyone else to be so eager about it, just as I can't expect everyone to care enough to use my audio ripping guide. Some people just want their music on their hard drive fast, quality be damned

Again, I haven't sent a mass GFF PM/email saying "Vorbis is the way to go", or whatever. And I understand your frustration about not everyone using the best VBR MP3 they could be.

But, so what if I can't expect that? Just because people want music fast doesn't make my assessment any less valid, it just means people are stubborn and ill-informed.

Quote:

And while you assert that it is not a filesize/quality issue, in the majority of cases that's exactly the question: How many bits does this codec take to represent audio with audible transparency? MP3's approximation of human psychoacoustics is good enough to produce humanly-transparent audio, and so is Vorbis' model. (Although, there are some uncommon samples that will make either codec artifact at just about any bitrate.)

Well, from experience I've learnt Vorbis is far superior to MP3 at recreating a WAV than MP3 has ever been. <shrugs> There's a lot of reason to choose Vorbis. I guess it goes back to the supermarket theory- there's so much to choose from, people don't have enough time to make (fully) informed decisions, so they shop around, or just don't care.

Quote:

Also, I find it hard to believe that, knowing all of this you do about Vorbis, you did not realize that all codecs are (and indeed must be) decoded to get at the audio data inside.

I guess I assumed that all decoding was lossy, as the files were being converted from a lossy format, which couldn't improve the sound.. I guess it's one of those silly things (I learnt it from another music forum I visit, I think). But that's why I visit places like Hydrogen Audio and GFF, because I love (game) music and good quality audio. I searched on HA for a while finding out info afterwards, to dispel more of the myth.

- Spike

Most amazing jew boots

It sounds like you still don't quite understand what decoding is. Decoding should never be lossy, because its simply a "translation" from that codec's arbitrarily-structured data compression to the standard raw data format that your hardware or other software can process. If you tried to pass actual MP3 data to your soundcard, or MPEG data directly to your video card, you'd only get gibberish out of it. Compressed files are only useful for one thing: being stored on your hard disk (or other permanent storage). To get any actual use from the file, the data must first be decompressed, usually into the RAM. (In the case of playing compressed media, it is decompressed in a "stream", continuously decoding what's about to play and discarding from memory what has already played.) There is no output of a compressed file without decoding, so saying that decompressing introduces loss to the output is pretty comparable to declaring 1 is not equal to 1. "... which makes no sense."

The only process that introduces loss is the encoding phase... when the source audio is approximated into that lossy file. And, of course, lossless compression formats will encode with no loss, exactly preserving the source. (Also of note, WAV is neither lossless or lossy per se, because it is not a compressed format at all. It contains PCM data that can be sent directly to the soundcard.)

You say that Vorbis is far superior at recreating the original WAV than MP3... I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume that you really meant Vorbis is superior at recreating the sound of the original WAV as heard by the human ear, because anything else in the original WAV is worthless as far as we're concerned. However, this does not do anything to counter my point that MP3s at a higher bitrate will achieve the same identical-sounding effect (aka "transparency"), so it's still just a bitrate efficiency issue.

But what it mostly comes down to -- and don't ignore this, it's the most important piece -- is many people like to be able to share their music. If you just have your music in Ogg Vorbis, then you will find that far fewer people will be receptive to your sharing... even though its a free offer! The majority thinks MP3 is just fine and would consider getting their computers to play Vorbis as much more of a hassle than the additional disk space required by MP3s of similar quality. And that's if they even care about the difference in audio quality...

As a post-note, I must say I have been amazed at how good music sounds at low quality settings with the latest aoTuV version, compared to the horrendous MP3 quality I remember at those sub-64Kbps bitrates. And I don't doubt that Vorbis reaches audible transparency "earlier" than MP3 in most cases... but the compatibility thing (having both portable and car-stereo MP3-CD players) and the sharing thing make MP3 my personal lossy format of choice. Although, I say lossy choice because I encode all of my albums to the lossless FLAC format, usually only transcoding to lossy when the audio is to be used beyond my computer.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?