Why aren't more people using ogg vorbis?

[sean2002]

Why aren't more people using this to encode wave files? Almost every review I've read on the net will tell you that the format sounds better than even a Lame encoded mp3, and is supported by most mp3 players, ie Winamp, sonique

 

[RSMemphis]

Well, you can blame many aspects.

1) Not supported by hardware players.
2) A lot of people are not aware of Ogg Vorbis.
3) MP3 sounds good enough to the uneducated ear, so why bother looking for something new
4) There are a lot of competing new formats (MP+ is even better than Ogg Vorbis, in my ears), but plain jane MP3 has seniority.

 

[mk]

Originally posted by: RSMemphis
Well, you can blame many aspects.

1) Not supported by hardware players.
2) A lot of people are not aware of Ogg Vorbis.
3) MP3 sounds good enough to the uneducated ear, so why bother looking for something new
4) There are a lot of competing new formats (MP+ is even better than Ogg Vorbis, in my ears), but plain jane MP3 has seniority.

That pretty much sums it up.

BTW, mp+ was changed to mpc about a year ago. :Q🙂

<-- happily encoding albums with mpc since November 2001. 😀

 

[RSMemphis]

Yes, of course you are right.

I sometimes still refer to it as MP+... Don't ask me why. Too much info - won't fit into my tiny brain 😉

 

[Workin']

The reason I haven't switched is that since double-blind testing proves that a properly encoded MP3 file is indistinguishable from the original CD source then you can't say without qualification that ogg vorbis sounds better, so why switch after finally figuring out MP3? Plus my hardware player won't play that format...

 

[RSMemphis]

I remember those tests.

Almost everyone could distinguish between 128kbit MP3 and the CD source.
Only one person was able to distinguish between 256kbit MP3 and the CD. And he said that in that case the 256kbit sounded better because it "helped" with some recording problems.

The point, however, is that Ogg Vorbis and/or MPC at 128kbit sound better than 128kbit MP3. If you have really nice speakers, a really nice soundcard, etc.
And a good source.

For 95% of popular music, 128kbit MP3 will be a) sufficient b) indistinguishable.
For the rest, you need the right sound hardware to here the difference.

 

[GoodRevrnd]

Originally posted by: Workin'
The reason I haven't switched is that since double-blind testing proves that a properly encoded MP3 file is indistinguishable from the original CD source then you can't say without qualification that ogg vorbis sounds better, so why switch after finally figuring out MP3? Plus my hardware player won't play that format...

OGG still leaves you with slightly smaller files though.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Originally posted by: GoodRevrnd
OGG still leaves you with slightly smaller files though.

I'm buying a 120 GB for my jukebox server, which with LAME "--alt-preset extreme" should fit at least 1,200 of my CDs. Once it's full, I'll buy another 🙂

MP3 = PC, DVD player, hd, flash & CD portables.
Ogg = PC.

Ogg is better at 128, but LAME's approx. 232 VBR MP3 sounds good enough for me 🙂

 

[Mucman]

I was looking into it, but re-ripping 550 CD's will take me a long time! I think if I ever re-rip my collection it will be to a lossless compression format.

 

[techwanabe]

Originally posted by: RSMemphis
Well, you can blame many aspects.

1) Not supported by hardware players.
2) A lot of people are not aware of Ogg Vorbis.
3) MP3 sounds good enough to the uneducated ear, so why bother looking for something new
4) There are a lot of competing new formats (MP+ is even better than Ogg Vorbis, in my ears), but plain jane MP3 has seniority.

Number 2 would be my reason. Ogg Vorbis? WTF?

 

[RSMemphis]

Ogg Vorbis main site

One of the Mpegplus sites...