OSDN | Our Network | Newsletters | Advertise | Shop     X 
Welcome to Slashdot The Almighty Buck The Internet Science Security Technology
 faq
 code
 awards
 journals
 subscribe
 older stuff
 rob's page
 preferences
 submit story
 advertising
 supporters
 past polls
 topics
 about
 bugs
 jobs
 hof

Sections
apache
Sep 9
(4 recent)

apple
Sep 9
(2 recent)

articles
Sep 9
(23 recent)

askslashdot
Sep 9
(3 recent)

books
Sep 9
(1 recent)

bsd
Sep 9
(1 recent)

developers
Sep 8
(1 recent)

features
Jul 18

interviews
Sep 9
(1 recent)

radio
Jun 29

science
Sep 9
(2 recent)

yro
Sep 9
(4 recent)

Ogg beats MP3 & The Rest In Listening Test
MusicPosted by Hemos on Monday September 09, @06:45AM
from the rhyming-is-fun dept.
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!"

Click Here for more.

 

 
Slashdot Login
Nickname:

Password:

[ Create a new account ]

Related Links
· Ogg Vorbis
· comparison
· c't
· More on Music
· Also by Hemos

<  Hands on Science Learning | Ruling in Aimster Case  >
Ogg beats MP3 & The Rest In Listening Test | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 473 comments | Search Discussion
Threshold:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1) | 2 (Slashdot Overload: CommentLimit 50)
But we knew this already... (Score:1)
by OrangeSpyderMan on Monday September 09, @06:46AM (#4219535)
(User #589635 Info)
Anyone who has their computer linked to a less than cheesy hifi knew this already... Story is -1 redundant? :)
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Babelfish Translation (Score:5, Informative)
by rjw57 (richwareham&users,sourceforge,net) on Monday September 09, @06:50AM (#4219542)
(User #532004 Info | http://damoclarem.xaqithis.com/)
A babelfish English transtaltion can be found here [altavista.com].
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Time To Switch (Score:1)
by transami on Monday September 09, @06:50AM (#4219546)
(User #202700 Info | http://transami.homestead.com)
think that's my queue. time to convert to ogg. :)

questions:

1. can anyone recommend a conversion utility for mp3->ogg?

2. what's the best linux, windows and/or mac ogg player?

3. what pocket portable players support ogg?

-transami
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Is it me? (Score:1, Interesting)
by jedie (jedieNO@SPAMpandora.be) on Monday September 09, @06:52AM (#4219549)
(User #546466 Info | http://jedie.eu.org/)
I don't know why, but I don't seem to hear any difference between CD Audio or mp3 (128kBit/s). Hell, even Windows Media sounds the same to me. (RealAudio on the other hand has real glitches in it though.)



So, am I going deaf? or are some people exagerating again?

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • Re:Is it me? by OrangeSpyderMan (Score:1) Monday September 09, @06:54AM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Re:Is it me? by Khalid (Score:2) Monday September 09, @07:19AM
  • I find the bass is off... by Shade, The (Score:2) Monday September 09, @07:20AM
  • Re:Is it me? by DrunkenPenguin (Score:2) Monday September 09, @07:22AM
    • Re:Is it me? by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Monday September 09, @08:33AM
    • Re:Is it me? by Moghedien (Score:1) Monday September 09, @05:17PM
    • Re:Is it me? by Zathruss (Score:1) Monday September 09, @09:25AM
    • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
  • Re:Is it me? by jridley (Score:2) Monday September 09, @07:23AM
  • Re:Is it me? by SHiFTY1000 (Score:3) Monday September 09, @07:32AM
  • It's not *just* you. by blixel (Score:1) Monday September 09, @07:37AM
  • It's you. by DrSkwid (Score:3) Monday September 09, @09:01AM
  • Re:Is it me? by charnerd (Score:1) Monday September 09, @11:02AM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Re:Is it me? by LordKariya (Score:1) Monday September 09, @12:14PM
  • Re:Is it me? by GoatPigSheep (Score:2) Monday September 09, @12:33PM
    • Re:Is it me? by GoatPigSheep (Score:2) Monday September 09, @12:39PM
      • Re:Is it me? by sasami (Score:1) Monday September 09, @01:35PM
        • Re:Is it me? by GoatPigSheep (Score:2) Monday September 09, @07:19PM
  • Re:Is it me? by mbogosian (Score:1) Monday September 09, @02:09PM
  • 8 replies beneath your current threshold.
Fullscale deployment (Score:4, Insightful)
by pajor on Monday September 09, @06:55AM (#4219559)
(User #310214 Info | http://www.gnuyen.org/)
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.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:Fullscale deployment (Score:5, Informative)
    by pajor on Monday September 09, @07:11AM (#4219614)
    (User #310214 Info | http://www.gnuyen.org/)
    From Xiph.org:

    For companies to produce portable Vorbis players, they need to be made aware that there is a market for them. Every day, I hear the same thing from Vorbis listeners; 'I'm not buying a hardware portable music player unless it supports Ogg Vorbis.' It's nice to hear, but we can't do anything about it (we're not a hardware company). So, this page is here to let you send that message to people who can. Remember, be polite!

    The Companies:

    Frontier Labs - URL [frontierlabs.com] - has told a lot of people that they're considering implementing Vorbis support for the NEX II machine. Here's their information:

    Frontier Labs
    Unit 2206 - 8, Cyberincubator, Kodak House II
    No. 321 Java Road
    North Point, Hong Kong
    Telephone: 852.2527.3322
    Fax: 852.2528.5277
    E-mail: techsupport@frontierlabs.com [mailto]

    iRiver - URL [iriver.com] - has said they are planning to support Ogg Vorbis in the future via firmware upgrade, but the schedule is not yet finalized. Here's their information:

    iRiver America
    1716 Ringwood Avenue
    San Jose, CA 95131
    Telephone: 1-408-452-7940
    Fax: 1-408-452-9944
    E-mail: contact@iriveramerica.com [mailto]

    UPDATE: Forwarded E-mail from iRiver America

    The engineers have Ogg Vorbis under consideration to support. However, at this time, there is no decision whether it will be supported in the future or not.

    Regards,

    Erica L. Briggs
    Customer Service Representative
    iRiver America, Inc.
    Direct: 408.452.7940

    Wouldn't you like to see Vorbis on the super-sexy iPod? We would, too. Here's some contact information for Apple Computer (URL [apple.com]):

    Apple
    1 Infinite Loop
    Cupertino, CA 95014
    Telephone: 408-996-1010

    UPDATE: Don't forget to drop a note to Apple about the iPod at http://www.apple.com/feedback/ipod.html [apple.com]!

    Other companies producing audio hardware:

    Archos Technology Inc. - URL [archos.com]
    3-A Goodyear
    Irvine, CA 92618
    Telephone: (949) 609-1400
    Fax: (949) 609-1414

    ReQuest Multimedia - URL [request.com]
    435 2nd Ave.
    Troy, NY 12182
    E-mail: bizdev@request.com [mailto]

    Evolution Technologies - URL [nowevolution.com]
    118 Kitty Hawk Drive
    Morrisville, NC 27560
    Telephone: 919-544-3777 / toll-free: 866-848-8070
    E-mail: info@nowevolution.com [mailto]

    UPDATE: Note from Evolution Technologies

    Evolution Technologies, Inc. is committed to support our consumers music appetite. We will support the formats that are consistent with both their desires and good business practices. While we have not ruled out supporting "open source" formats, we must first evaluate the acceptance levels with the buying public so that our organization can justify the expense of developing a new compatible CODEC. When the demand is sufficient, we will support the technology.

    Sonic Blue - URL [sonicblue.com]
    2841 Mission College Blvd.
    Santa Clara, CA 95054-1838
    Telephone: (408) 588-8000

    I-Jam Multimedia LLC - URL [ijamworld.com]
    1092 National Parkway
    Schaumburg, IL 60173
    Telephone: 847-839-1233
    Fax: 847-839-1277
    E-mail: ehamnett@geltzerpr.com [mailto]

    Alaris, Inc. - URL [gummy-mp3.com]
    44061 Nobel Drive
    Fremont, CA 94538

    Creative Labs, Inc. - URL [creative.com]
    Developer Relations
    1901 McCarthy Blvd.
    Milpitas, California 95035
    Telephone: 408-546-6425
    Fax: 408-432-6717
    E-mail: devmusic@cre [mailto]

    Read the rest of this comment...

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • Re:Fullscale deployment by Junta (Score:2) Monday September 09, @09:05AM
  • Re:Fullscale deployment by OrangeTide (Score:1) Monday September 09, @02:01PM
Ogg is only discernably better at lower bitrates.. (Score:5, Insightful)
by altgrr on Monday September 09, @06:57AM (#4219566)
(User #593057 Info)
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.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
I actually scored the 64kbps sample above.. (Score:5, Insightful)
by rseuhs on Monday September 09, @06:58AM (#4219570)
(User #322520 Info | http://roland.seuhs.com/)
... 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...)
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Manual Translation (Score:5, Informative)
by kris on Monday September 09, @06:59AM (#4219578)
(User #824 Info | http://www.koehntopp.de/kris/)
Full sound at 1/2 file size

For five years mp3 has been the format of choice for music downloads on the Internet and space-saving archives of complete CDs. What the human ear cannot hear is being filtered out by mp3, reducing audio files to 1/10th of the original size.

Meanwhile alternative file formats are challenging mp3 and had to prove themselves in the past weeks in the c't listening test. We tested mp3, the designated followup AAC (advanced audio coding), mp3pro with improved performance at lower bitrates, ReadAudio Surround, the brandnew Windows Media 9 Beta and finally the open source code Ogg Vorbis.

With more than 6000 online ratings (3300 of them concerning the 64 kBit/sec samples) this is one of the largest listing tests for lossy compression ever. We would like to thank all participants!

Especially at 64 kBit/sec Ogg Vorbis convinced and declassed the entire commercial competition. From 128 kBit/sec upwards the discernable differences between the formats become much smaller, making WMA, RealAudio, MP3Pro and MP3 indistinguishable for most listeners.

In a second parallel test c't assembled a panel of eight professional listeners in the Peppermint Pavillon, the Studio of music producer Mousse T. Testers were Mousse T. himself, the soprano Carmen Fuggis from the Staatsoper Hannover, a blind sound engineer, a Tonmeister (??? literal: sound master), a 12 year old pupil and the developer ofthe MusePack audio codec (formerly MP+), Andree Buschmann.

What "hardships of hearing" the experts faced and the detailed results of the online listing test can be read in c't 19/2002 (available in stores from 9th Sep 2002).
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Ogg Vorbis (Score:1)
by pajor on Monday September 09, @07:06AM (#4219602)
(User #310214 Info | http://www.gnuyen.org/)
Kudos to the Ogg Vorbis team.

I donated [paypal.com] how about you?
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Quality Rating (Score:4, Insightful)
by Captain Large Face (slashdot@@@davidjonathangrant...info) on Monday September 09, @07:10AM (#4219609)
(User #559804 Info | http://www.davidjonathangrant.info/)

So what quality rating is 64Kb/s? Vorbis uses variable encoding bitrates, so giving a static value isn't 100% helpful. I know Vorbis encodes on a scale of 1-10, so what would be the recommended level following the results of this study?

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Of quality & compression (Score:5, Interesting)
by Powercntrl on Monday September 09, @07:10AM (#4219610)
(User #458442 Info)
I've found 192kbit CBR MP3 to be more than adequate for my music copy-ahem- archival needs. The resulting quality is largely the result of using a good encoder. I can't read German and the fish is of little help, so I don't know if they used a good encoder like LAME or Fraunhofer, or some garbage like Xing when doing their MP3 comparison.

MP3 player quality also seems to vary considerably. The best player I've heard on Win32 is one called Nad (seriously, that's the name). From what I understand, the author sold the rights to some company and that was the end of it... Winamp's quality has varied over the years as the decoding engine was changed several times over the course of its life. Sonique seems to be pretty good as well. While Fraunhofer's encoder is very good, the free playback-only codec bundled with Media Player seems to have lackluster high frequency response, giving the audio a less "defined" sound.

Despite all my rambling, my point is simply that it is hard to do an objective comparison of MP3 to other formats since there are so many variations of the encoding and decoding software. I've done my own listening comparisons with OGG and found it to be comparable to MP3, but since my portable MP3 CD player only plays MP3s and redbook audio CDs, my use of OGG has been quite limited.

While I applaud the open source community for producing such a high-quality competitor to MP3 as OGG, the real issue of getting people to switch still lies in hardware support and easy-to-use, CDDB compatible OGG CD-rip utilities.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
The problem (Score:5, Insightful)
by Mr_Silver on Monday September 09, @07:14AM (#4219621)
(User #213637 Info | http://www.uberworld.org/user_info.cgi?name=Silver)
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 ...

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • Re:The problem by CoolVibe (Score:2) Monday September 09, @07:34AM
    • Re:The problem (Score:5, Insightful)
    by GigsVT on Monday September 09, @07:40AM (#4219689)
    (User #208848 Info | http://www.electronicschat.org/ | Last Journal: Wednesday August 21, @09:01PM)
    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.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    • Re:The problem by Mr_Silver (Score:1) Monday September 09, @07:46AM
    • Re:The problem by Michael Wardle (Score:1) Monday September 09, @09:03AM
      • Winamp by brunes69 (Score:2) Monday September 09, @09:42AM
        • Re:Winamp by PainKilleR-CE (Score:1) Monday September 09, @10:22AM
          • Re:Winamp by brunes69 (Score:2) Monday September 09, @04:26PM
            • Re:Winamp by PainKilleR-CE (Score:1) Monday September 09, @05:45PM
        • Re:Winamp by takshaka (Score:1) Monday September 09, @01:24PM
        • Re:Winamp by Michael Wardle (Score:1) Monday September 09, @07:09PM
    • Re:The problem by Blue Stone (Score:1) Monday September 09, @01:14PM
    • Re:The problem by Jucius Maximus (Score:1) Monday September 09, @04:57PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Re:The problem by p3d0 (Score:2) Monday September 09, @07:46AM
    • Re:The problem (Score:5, Informative)
    by Makali on Monday September 09, @08:11AM (#4219804)
    (User #13158 Info | http://www.lazycat.org/)
    What do you mean, there's little reason? There's little reason for the consumer, because the consumer doesn't give a monkey's: if people really cared about the sound quality, Kazaa and Gnutella wouldn't be flooded with 128kbit MP3s. MP3s encoded at a higher bitrate can be used as a solution to all of MP3's audio problems, and storage is cheap, so yes, it's unlikely that there'll be an instant switch to any better format, and if there is, it won't come from the consumer.

    Now, for the content provider, it's a different story entirely. Thomson/Fraunhofer are actively pursuing royalty fees, and all the other "next generation" codecs do too. Except Vorbis. With Vorbis (one of the Ogg formats; there are several), audio can be coded at a lower bitrate and sound the same as a higher-bitrated MP3, and there's no royalty fee which means the development costs are lower, and (potentially) the product is cheaper. Thomson aren't making any friends running around with their team of lawyers and threatening people left right and centre with license-fee demands. If a good quality alternative presents itself (quality as a function of price and ease of use, rather than audio quality), developers will be tempted to switch. From what I hear, the Vorbis libraries are very easy to use.

    New formats are being picked up by software developers (especially console game developers, where RAM and Storage are at a premium). Once developers start using the format, they'll use it in other products too. If it costs little to add a codec to encoding products (and well, the vorbis libraries are free, but you still have to pay a guy to learn the APIs and program for them), then there's little point in not implementing it.

    Ironically, Thomson/Fraunhofer are trying to play down the significance of MP3 because they're trying to sell AAC, which benefits all alternative codecs pretty much equally.

    Finally, don't be a fool. No one's asking anyone to recode anything. Unless there was an outright ban on the MP3 format tomorrow (and some way to enforce it), there's no point recoding your audio. There's no isolation in using Ogg when you can use MP3 at the same time. Winamp, the next version of RealPlayer, and Windows Media Player (via a DirectX plugin) all support OGG Vorbis files. To the consumer, little changes... to the average windows user, they probably won't even know! Windows hides file-extensions by default, so it'll just be another "Winamp Media File".

    There's no "step backwards"; it's a step /sideways/, but still going in the same direction. Instead of being on the centre path of MP3, you can switch to Ogg, and still have MP3 at your right hand. You're given /more/ choice, not less. You now have a choice whether to use OGG or MP3 in many applications. That's a good thing, right?
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • People, remeber the output device! by tedDancin (Score:1) Monday September 09, @08:38AM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Re:The problem by miguel (Score:2) Monday September 09, @09:08AM
  • Re:The problem by rseuhs (Score:2) Monday September 09, @10:50AM
  • Pissed-off Slash-dotters by repetty (Score:1) Monday September 09, @12:50PM
  • Re:The problem by Khopesh (Score:2) Monday September 09, @04:51PM
  • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
File size comparison (Score:2, Interesting)
by Nosher (simon@nosher.net) on Monday September 09, @07:14AM (#4219623)
(User #574322 Info | http://nosher.net/)
Listening to music over a couple of soup cans tied together with string is better than MP3 encoded at 128Kbps. At this sample rate, MP3 has always been a bit naff (which is one of the reasons my 3000+ MP3s are all my own encodings from my own stuff). I always encode at 192 or VBR (variable bit-rate) with a minimum of 160Kbps using LAME, and to be honest, think it sounds pretty darn good (Ok, it doesn't quite stand up to direct comparison with CD, but then it's only one-tenth the size and way more convenient). And yes, I *do* listen through a good HiFi. So can anyone tell me a) is there really much detectable difference (in terms of audio quality) between Ogg and a well-encoded, high bitrate MP3, and b) how the file sizes really compare, when one of my average 3-4 minute MP3s weighs in at 6-8MB?
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Perhaps the 64 kbit format could be called... (Score:4, Funny)
by Omnifarious on Monday September 09, @07:26AM (#4219651)
(User #11933 Info | http://www.omnifarious.org/~hopper | Last Journal: Wednesday December 19, @01:47PM)

Perhaps the 64 kbit format could be called a hard-boiled ogg.

  • 64kbit - hard boild ogg
  • 128kbit - over hard ogg
  • 160kbit - over easy ogg
  • 192kbit - sunny side up ogg
  • 256kbit - poached ogg
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
"Germany's respected computer magazine c't" (Score:3, Informative)
by KAMiKAZOW on Monday September 09, @07:28AM (#4219653)
(User #455500 Info)
c't is a good computer magazine, but it's not an professional audio magazine.
If you want to learn about audio encoding, listening tests and so on, visit audio-illumination.org [audio-illumination.org] and ff123.net [ff123.net]

A discussion about heise's listening test can be found here [audio-illumination.org].

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Better than the fish... (Score:3, Funny)
by OneFix on Monday September 09, @07:28AM (#4219654)
(User #18661 Info | Last Journal: Monday March 18, @07:34PM)
The WorldLingo Translation [worldlingo.com] seems to be better than babelfish because of the option to do content specific translation...

Compare the different translations of the same text...

BabelFish: "RealAudio Surround, the fire-new Windows Media 9 beta"
WorldLingo: (using Computer, Data Processing as the subject) "RealAudio Surround, the fire-new Windows Media 9 beta"

You can also do your own translation here [worldlingo.com].
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Has anyone ever considered... (Score:2, Insightful)
by Jace of Fuse! (fuse AT jacefuse DOT com) on Monday September 09, @07:32AM (#4219668)
(User #72042 Info | http://www.tagor.com)
That maybe Ogg would take off much better if the name weren't stupid?

It is. Just listen to it? And I'm not joking. Asthetics in some things wins over a greater majority of the time vs functionality.

Maybe if the file format was called something like OVM or something, then we would actually have a cool file-format name that is cool to say, even cooler than MP3 (which just sounds cool and high tech.)

Imagine...

Person: "Man, I was listening to those OVMs, this weekend... they sound really good!"

Person 2: "OVMs? I've seen those, are they cool?"

Person 3: "Are you guys talking about thos OVUMs?"

Person: "The wuh?"

Person 3: "Those OVUMs... I keep seeing them when I do web-searches for MP3s, they keep popping up instead."

er... well... maybe a little more thought should be put into a name. Heh. OGG... "Did you download any Eggs this weekend?" You know -- there --IS-- more to a file format than the technical specs.

If you think the above post was a bad attempt at humor, put good taste aside for a moment and concentrate on the point.

Ogg just sounds stupid.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Great now what? (Score:2)
by Chanc_Gorkon (jmclaug3NO@SPAMcolumbus.rr.com) on Monday September 09, @07:45AM (#4219706)
(User #94133 Info)
I know OGG is better. Seen it in person. Stil does not change the fact taht I don't have players where I want them. This will soon change I hope! Pocket Divx for PocketPC will play OGGs, but it doesn't read tag info concerning artist. Filenames are kind of hokey. At least I hear iRiver is looking at a ROM update to add support for OGG in the future. But I want to play OGGs where I want now....not 2 years from now. It's getting close....but I won't re-rip (only way to encode a OGG RIGHT....conversion from MP# is not a good option) unless I can do this.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Just because it's "the best"... (Score:1, Redundant)
by Pedrito (pdavis68@hotmail.com) on Monday September 09, @07:56AM (#4219750)
(User #94783 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
doesn't mean people are going to use it. MP3s are pretty dug in. I've been hearing about Ogg Vorbis on SlashDot for quite a while now. Maybe I live under a rock or something, but I've never actually heard anything encoded with Ogg Vorbis.

It may be better, it may have better compression, but the fact is, people seem pretty satisfied with MP3 and I don't see that changing anytime soon.

If you asked most people in the know, OS/2 was a much better OS than Windows for a long time, and it was backed up by a major player (major player shrewd marketer). But it never took.

That happens a lot in this industry. Linux is more stable than Windows, but you don't see it on the desktop. Borland had the best development tools, but look at them...

My point is, Ogg can be twice as good, but unless there's a really compelling reason (besides better sound and better compression), I don't see the masses making the change. What kind of compelling reason? I don't know. Maybe if MP3s somehow become "digitally protected" or something.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
ogg (Score:3, Insightful)
by NetGyver on Monday September 09, @08:03AM (#4219775)
(User #201322 Info)
In Other News:

WinMX has included ogg as one of it's search options in their newest client v3.3. Their website is devoid of update changes, but I haven't seen it prior to the release of v3.3. (as far as memory serves at least.)

As far as format of Choice(TM), i still perfer mp3s over ogg. I backed up a chunk (109 cds) of my cd collection into 320k mp3s and that was a *bitch* even with automatic cddb labeling. I recently purchased a portable mp3/cd player as well. There are a good number of car mp3 players as well, which extends the convenience of the format, not to mention the abundance of mp3 home stereo solutions.

MP3 is a proprietary format yes, but it isn't restrictive. John Q doesn't need the source code for the format, he just likes the fact that the mp3 format gives him lots of options when it comes to where he listens to his music.

Ogg definately has potential, it seems like they got the format down pretty nicely. Its the hardware-player area that they need to spend some time focusing on to really be a challange to the mp3 format. And I wish them luck because to me, it's nothing but choice, and choice is good.

As far as the name itself, i still find it a bit "weird" speaking the name. "Ogg", i mean that's the kind of noise i make when i'm sick :)

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • Re:ogg by larien (Score:2) Monday September 09, @08:34AM
  • Re:ogg by WNight (Score:2) Monday September 09, @02:36PM
  • Re:ogg by Spy Hunter (Score:2) Monday September 09, @07:42PM
Name is not Catchy (Score:1)
by Daddio on Monday September 09, @08:22AM (#4219838)
(User #171891 Info)
Every kid on EARTH knows MP3. It is cool sounding, even moms and dads know it. Every time I see orgg vorbis i think of some remote or breakfast dish. I dont see it happeneing.

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
moccasins better than shoes.... (Score:2)
by Lumpy on Monday September 09, @08:37AM (#4219885)
(User #12016 Info | http://www.your-website-sucks.com/)
and it has been proven in tests that soft leather moccasins are better for your feet and feel better than the horribly designed dress shoes that most of us office workers wear.... yet widespread acceptance and the ability to buy dress-moccasins in a store cripples acceptance..

You want Ogg to win? it HAS to be in the hardware players.. and more specifically, in the next firmware update for many of the recent players (NEX-II.... Audiotron... etc...)

the numero-uno reason people use mp3 is for their portable devices.. If the only place I could listen to mp3's was my computer then I wouldn't waste my time encoding them.... except for maybe trading them... but that's illegal and nobody would do that...
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
Download some free ogg files ! (Score:1)
by sheimers on Monday September 09, @08:42AM (#4219902)
(User #151991 Info | http://www.heimers.ch/)
http://free.superhits.ch/cgi-bin/superhits.cgi?pag e=search&search=ogg [superhits.ch]
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Oh yeah...? (Score:1)
by rocjoe71 on Monday September 09, @08:45AM (#4219916)
(User #545053 Info)
After twenty years of going to raves and concerts and using walkman headphones at 9.5-10, I defy anyone to create a file format that can overcome the constant ring of tinitis in my ears!
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • Re:Oh yeah...? by Gordonjcp (Score:2) Monday September 09, @09:37AM
  • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
ot: internet languages (Score:2)
by MORTAR_COMBAT! on Monday September 09, @08:50AM (#4219941)
(User #589963 Info)
As a moderately proficient German reader, I'm glad to be able to enjoy these kinds of technical articles.

Kind of OT, what other languages are folks finding interesting in today's Internet world? I've seen a lot of content in English, German, Chinese, Japanese, and Spanish, but really, not much else, aside from the Italian page or two.

Is the Internet speeding up the proliferation of these 5 languages, and these 5 alone? And what happens when the Western world all speaks English/German/Spanish and the Eastern world all speaks English/Chinese/Japanese? I tried learning Japanese, but my meager brain was not up to the task. German and Spanish come fairly easily to an English speaker.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
What ogg is not... (Score:5, Insightful)
by BitGeek (bitgeek&mac,com) on Monday September 09, @08:57AM (#4219982)
(User #19506 Info)
.. 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.

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
How about OGG to MP3? (Score:2)
by dschuetz (slash@david. d a s net.org) on Monday September 09, @09:02AM (#4220010)
(User #10924 Info | http://www.dasnet.org/)
Okay, so I've got about half my 300-CD collection ripped. Some is ripped with 128k MusicMatch (with crappy joint stereo artifacts and pumping), some with 160k LAME, and more recent stuff with 160-256k LAME. I want to finish ripping everything, and re-do all the old stuff, at once (I even found an old 18-CD SCSI jukebox to help automate it just a little).

So, if I'm going to go through all this trouble, I'd better rip it to as good a format as possible. I'm generally happy with 160+ LAME, but if OGG can give better quality with smaller size, then I'm all for that. I briefly considered a lossless format (like FLAC), but the idea of a half-terabyte array for music, while cool in an uber-geeky way, doesn't sit well with my bank account right now.

I need to retain some kind of MP3 compatibility, for small portables (64k Nomad) and my "long trip" portable (20G Rio Riot), not to mention my three Rio Receivers (though we've got 3rd party software supporting FLAC and some OGG at this point).

My question, then, is this: If I rip everything to ogg at quality 6 or 7 (it's sounding like 6 would be 'best' for my purposes -- I'll never own a super-audiophile tube amp with 20-pound speaker magnets :) ), can I then transcode to MP3 at a lower quality (96 to 128 or so) without significant artifacts? Or will the simple fact of combining two lossy compression steps totally hose me? (sort of like re-compressing a JPEG image)

I understand why you can't take a decent mp3 and encode it to a 'better' ogg, the information simply isn't there. But if the output of a q7 ogg decoding is a near-perfect wav file, can't I then encode that at a lower bitrate without any significant differences from an original mp3 rip? Or will inaudible artifacts and/or the resultant lossy frequency spectrum coming out of the ogg decoder confuse the MP3 encoder?

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
I wont switch unless.. (Score:1)
by Squarewav on Monday September 09, @09:04AM (#4220021)
(User #241189 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
unless ether one of 2 things happen

1: I buy a car cd player that supports it, not going to happen (soon at least), for one nothing supports ogg and 2 I just spent 300$ on a rockford fosgate cd/mp3 player .

2: software mp3 players and rippers start charging as it stands for now it costs me "nothing" to use mp3, ya I know it costs poor aol a few 100k a year to keep winamp running, but if they want to spend the money so I can have a free mp3 player its there problem.

I know the problems with mp3 as in for small/oss developers cant make mp3 players ( and still be leagal) but I, and most people just dont care at this moment
sorry for the bad spalling errors but its 8 am and dont feal like running a spell cheaker ;)
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
What I'd like to see.. (Score:1)
by silverhalide on Monday September 09, @09:14AM (#4220054)
(User #584408 Info)
I'd like to see OGG go head-to-head with a high-quality Vinyl disc/player combo. For years I've heard audio enthusaists claim Vinyl was better than CDs, and on a clean professional setup, it usually is. I'd like to see them take a vinyl, encode it using studio quality A/D equipment, and test from there. Should be a more interesting result.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Test results are questionable, because ... (Score:1)
by jetmarc on Monday September 09, @09:16AM (#4220067)
(User #592741 Info)
The test results that were collected from internet users, are questionable. Some
users took it as competition, as in "who identifies most files correctly" and not
"which file sounds best". They found that, when played back in WinAmp, the
spectral analyser display gave information about the frequency bandwidth. This
is an indicator to the compression of the wave.

This information was public on HEISEs (publisher of Ct magazine and conductor
of the test) news server well before the end of the test. Nobody knows how many
testers have judged for "political" motivations rather than perceived sound quality.

jetmarc
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
name change (Score:1)
by kyoko21 on Monday September 09, @09:17AM (#4220075)
(User #198413 Info)
With all the posts of people talking about a name change, why dont the Ogg team ask Naughty by Nature if they can change OGG to OPP? :-)

Stupid, but at least quite a few people will know what OPP is... hehe
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
There *is* a noticeable difference... (Score:1)
by BadElf on Monday September 09, @09:17AM (#4220076)
(User #448282 Info)
I'm a musician who's into home recording -- mostly acoustic stuff. I've experimented with converting my original recordings to MP3 and OGG and must say there is a *very* noticeable difference.

With acoustic and classical music, there are subtleties in the sound that I've never been able to reproduce with MP3 at *any* bitrate. What blew my mind was that OGG preserved them beautifully at only a 128k bitrate. With other music genres, the difference isn't as apparent -- especially anything that's heavy on synth or midi, mainly because these are "noiseless" methods of making sound (there's either sound, or there isn't). They compress well because the instrument "voices" lack the resonance and complex noise frequencies of real instruments.

I don't really have anything against MP3 -- I use it quite a bit -- but my point is that OGG definitely provides a *much* superior sound.

Just my two cents...
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
My embarassing test results (Score:2)
by florin (florin@anguish.org) on Monday September 09, @09:24AM (#4220117)
(User #2243 Info)
I know some people went to great lengths to do this test carefully, using high quality amplifiers and waveform analyzers and what more. I simply plugged headphones into my SB Live, listened to each piece twice, and then gave them a grade from 1-5.

I thought the 128 kbit was very hard because there were hardly any noticeable differences between the samples. The fact that they were very short didn't help. I handed out 5 points to 5 of the seven pieces, so the order there is almost random.

After the testing period had finished, C'T sent me the following results:

Ihre Bewertung für 64 kBit/s-Codecs:

Platz 1: MP3Pro
Platz 2: unkomprimiert (WAV)
Platz 3: Windows Media Audio
Platz 4: Ogg Vorbis
Platz 5: AAC
Platz 6: RealAudio
Platz 7: MP3

Ihre Bewertung für 128 kBit/s-Codecs:

Platz 1: AAC
Platz 2: MP3
Platz 3: Windows Media Audio
Platz 4: RealAudio
Platz 5: unkomprimiert (WAV)
Platz 6: Ogg Vorbis
Platz 7: MP3Pro

The order may not be what I'd like it to be, but my only conclusion can be that compression in general is good enough for me!
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Ogg is God's gift to the classical music world (Score:2, Interesting)
by cortense (tagith1394@ h o t m a il.com) on Monday September 09, @09:33AM (#4220166)
(User #75925 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
Or at least, Xiph's gift... Yes, we know already how much ogg rules! One of the things that I haven't seen mentioned is the fact that ogg encodes the entire file, whereas mp3 tends to loose about half a frame on either side, due to the fact that adjacent frames depend on one another. While this may be just fine for your Britney Spears cd, when you're listening to opera, it's just awful..

This makes ogg the ideal lossy compression method for classical music.. just one problem! There's no support for portable players!

Thousands of souls cry out, but are suddenly silenced when I commit the sacrilege of transcoding ogg to mp3, so that I can listen on-the-go. So I have to give up all the wonderful benefits of ogg (quality, gapless, great tagging, free, etc) for all the limitations of MP3, so I can actually listen to the music!

The moment I see a cdplayer that will play OGG and MP3, I'll put all my new music in ogg from then on!

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Bitrate (Score:1)
by grant+harris (grant.h@[ ]lplace.com ['koo' in gap]) on Monday September 09, @09:44AM (#4220224)
(User #603582 Info | http://www.koolplace.com/)
128kbit and 160kbit sounds like ass on my stereo. Once you get up to 256+ they sound great. I have an Soundblaster 5.1 hooked up to my JVC RX-7010 with an Optical Cable. They speakers are a set of Celestion Dittion 442.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
Ogg encoder was way slow (Score:2)
by phr2 on Monday September 09, @09:55AM (#4220279)
(User #545169 Info)
I played with Ogg a few months ago when it was still a late beta. It sounded fine sonically, but its encoder was several times slower CPU-wise than the LAME mp3 encoder. That was a pain--my cd drive rips audio at a wimpy 6x or so, and LAME could keep up with it easily while OGG couldn't. Ogg ran at maybe 3x on my 750 mhz PIII. Of course a fast Athlon would help, but if I got one I'd also get a CD drive that could rip at 40x. So encoding speed matters, if you want to archive a large CD collection (the alternative is rip to disk and then batch-encode for days on end, but that takes a lot of disk space).

Maybe the current encoder is faster, or can be made faster. If not, Ogg has a nontrivial disadvantage that hasn't gotten discussed much.

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Size Quality Matrix ANother Lack Luster Test (Score:2, Insightful)
by kenp2002 (kenp2002 AT msn DOT com) on Monday September 09, @09:57AM (#4220297)
(User #545495 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
They leave so much out of the test. I expect more for Germans than their test data revealed. Ok so we compare sound tests for various formats. Problem right off the bat is apple-orange bitrate comparisons exist that must be factored. For instance which sounds better a 128 bit OGG or a 320 bit Mp3. What about a 96 bit rate Mp3Pro. Where is the realation between the two? Then what about the compression ratios being matrixed in? If a 128 bit Mp3 sounds better than a 96 bit OGG but at only a cost of 5-8% where does that factor in? The space requirment is factored leaving this survey lackluster at best. The only decent way I can see in representing an Encoder format is some kind of QUALITY PER BIT ratio. But that doesn't work as certain types of music, when encoded at various bitrates, perform diffferently. Case in point compare live music at 95 bitrate versus studio tracks at 96. Compare Techno at 128 bit versus GT slide-guitar att 128bit.

I feel that until we get a complete test, not some quarter-point test, we will not get a real result that we cen depend on.

My tests come out like this:

Pink Floyd - Shine on You Crazy Diamond - Live
(From the Delicate Sounds of Thunder CD)

MP3 320bit 15mb Quality 100% (Base line)
MP3-Pro 96bit 4mb Quality 94%
OGG 128bit 7.6mb Quality 96%
MP3 128bit 7.1mb Quality 99%

Under these circumstances OGG lost not due to quality but size. The difference between 7.6 and 7.1 is 7% size. ON an archive of say 1TB of audio data that is significant and should be considered.

Another issue is encoder performance. I can encode the same identical track with 4 different MP3 encoders and get 4 completly different results. It boggles the mind. the lack of data. Grr... they just didn't give us enough.

Here is my solution: Make an encoder format that actually contains all the formats. Do a signal analysis on the original wave file and use the best encoder format for that particular sound! There, all our problems are solved. We'll call it say "File Audio Group Interchange Encoder" and have it parent these formats in one Codec. There don't we feel better?
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
Test methodology (Score:2)
by XNormal on Monday September 09, @09:58AM (#4220298)
(User #8617 Info | http://slashdot.org/~xnormal)
I'd like to see an audio encoding comparison test conducted this way:

Source material: About 50 clips, 20 seconds each representing a variety of musical styles. Two thirds should be normal music and the rest will be material that is known to be difficult to encode using psychoacoustic encoding.

Bit rates: each encoding will be tested at multiple bit rates. The purpose is to find the threshold at which the codec is indistinguishable from PCM. Another interesting threshold is the bit rate at which the codec can be distinguished from PCM but the artifacts are not annoying.

Media: Material will be encoded and decoded back to PCM and recorded onto CD-Rs. Listeners will listen to them on their favorite high-quality audio gear, not through a sound card and PC speakers.

CD-Rs are numbered and individually customized. All disks will have the same order of sound clips, but each one will be encoded with a different encoder/bitrate. Disks may be mailed to listeners and the results gathered by a web form.

The clips will be divided into two groups. The first group is designed to detect the bitrate threshold for each codec where the result is indistinguishable from the PCM source. Each clip will appear three times on the disk using the R/A/B methodology: R is the reference (original PCM), one of A or B is the encoded/decoded clip and the other is identical to the reference. The listeners will need to answer whether A or B is the original.

The result for each codec will be the bitrate at which listeners were not able do discern with any statistical significance the difference between the encoded and original PCM.

The second set of tests is for rating bitrates below the threshold of indistinguishability. Each clip will appear twice: first the reference then the same clip encoded by some unknown codec/bitrate combination. The listeners will rate them on a subjective scale of 1 to 5:

1. The quality of the encoded clip is inadequate.
2. The encoded has noticable annoying artifacts but it is still adequate for enjoying the music in situations where a higher rate is not practical.
3. The encoded clip has a noticably lower quality but is not annoying in any way.
4. Different, but it is not possible to really tell which one is better.
5. Indistinguishable from the source.

Results for each codec/bitrate will be averaged for all clips and presented as a graph. Results for normal and known-hard clips may also be displayed separately.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
man o man (Score:2, Interesting)
by Apreche on Monday September 09, @10:04AM (#4220324)
(User #239272 Info | http://slashdot.org/~apreche/journal/ | Last Journal: Monday August 26, @01:25PM)
this is probably not going to get seen as there are already a ton of posts and as we know on slashdot only early intelligent posts get recognition.
Anyway, yes ogg vorbis IS free and open. And yes ogg vorbis sounds much better at low bitrates. That's really all ogg has in its favor. The way I see it, who gives a crap about file size anymore? I have many many gigs of hard drive space. If I really care about high audio quality I make variable bitrate mp3s or 320kbps mp3s. If you're that much of an audiophile to tell me that you can hear a difference what are you doing using ogg OR mp3? They are both lossy! You need super cds to get the perfect audio quality you desire.
Since most of us are not audiophiles (I hope) then it only matters whether or not you care about hard drive space or audio quality more. I personally care about both. But hard drive space and bandwith are so plentiful that I'm going to get a high bitrate mp3 for any song I care about. Even better I'll use the lame encoders great vbr encoding. After 192kpbs I can't hear a difference, can you?
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re-think this... (Score:3, Insightful)
by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 09, @10:26AM (#4220476)
1. Dont promote ogg on the basis that it is better quality than mp3. It is, but if you're listening on cheap headphones at a bus-stop right next to somebody digging the road up, who cares?

2. Do promote ogg on the basis that hardware devices will be cheaper as there are no royalties to pay.

3. Do promote ogg on the basis that it is the 'right thing'. Mp3 is *so* last year :-)

4. If people want to convert mp3->ogg - LET THEM. If they are that uninformed that they don't understand why it's stupid, just let them do it.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
It's Vorbis not Ogg! (Score:2, Informative)
by ee96090 on Monday September 09, @10:28AM (#4220497)
(User #56165 Info)
I just wish people would use the correct names, for once. Either use Ogg Vorbis, or just Vorbis. Not 'Ogg'. Ogg is only the wrapper format. Vorbis is the codec.
    I know Ogg is shorter and cooler, but think: what's more relevant, the wrapper format or the codec? Especially in this case?
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Who names these things? (Score:2)
by John Jorsett on Monday September 09, @10:52AM (#4220687)
(User #171560 Info)
Open source would probably be better served if some thought was given to naming the products. Ogg Vorbis doesn't exactly roll off the tongue. And whoever thought to name the DivX format after the failed format of the exact same name ought to be shot. And then healed and shot again.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
But first... (Score:1)
by andfarm (andfarm@thibs.menloschool.org) on Monday September 09, @10:55AM (#4220699)
(User #534655 Info | http://thibs.menloschool.org/~andfarm/ | Last Journal: Thursday April 11, @12:43AM)
First Apple'll have to get iTunes and their iPod t play the darned things.

I'm in contact with an iTunes developer. Commencing OGG advocacy NOW...

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
How about the *AUDIO* magazines? (Score:2)
by jcoleman on Monday September 09, @10:59AM (#4220731)
(User #139158 Info)
When a respected magazine like Audiophile or at least Sound and Vision does a test like this, I will believe the results. Until then I will continue to listen to my compact-disc-sound-quality compact discs.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Too bad it's too late (Score:1)
by Halmos on Monday September 09, @11:07AM (#4220789)
(User #464196 Info)
I'm a high-end audio buff and have heard Ogg Vorbus, and it's truly superior. But it's too late. Ogg Vorbis has a lousy, lousy name that the public will never accept (even "ogg" is lame). And it won't take over MP3 cuz that's been locked-in. Ogg is the betamax of the music-swopping industry.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
And in other news ... (Score:1)
by grip on Monday September 09, @11:18AM (#4220870)
(User #60499 Info)
...Betamax is better than VHS.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
Translation (Site has an english version) (Score:3, Informative)
by Chucow (frenziedvoodoo.worldnet@att@net) on Monday September 09, @11:26AM (#4220931)
(User #572393 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
Just thought it interesting that everyone is posting babelfish / translating service translations when there is an English version [heise.de] available from the site.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Technically Superior? Costs Nothing? (Score:2)
by kindbud on Monday September 09, @11:31AM (#4220976)
(User #90044 Info | http://www.thekindbud.com/)
Then it's bound to LOSE in the marketplace!
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Quality (Score:1)
by SkullHead on Monday September 09, @11:56AM (#4221130)
(User #607261 Info)
I currently have all of my cds (200+) ripped as 192kb/s mp3s. If I was to re-rip them as ogg's, what would be a good bitrate to rip them at (comparable to the 192)
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
How we will laugh (Score:1)
by MrBlint on Monday September 09, @12:03PM (#4221172)
(User #607257 Info)
when we look back on all this in 5 years time. With the current rate of progress in internet bandwidth and hard disk/memory capacity, soon no one will be using any kind of compressed audio.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • 21 replies beneath your current threshold.
    • (1) | 2 (Slashdot Overload: CommentLimit 50)
    		  AWAKE! FEAR! FIRE! FOES! AWAKE! FEAR! FIRE! FOES! AWAKE! AWAKE! -- J. R. R. Tolkien
    All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2002 OSDN.
    [ home | awards | contribute story | older articles | OSDN | advertise | self serve ad system | about | terms of service | privacy | faq ]