Ogg The Conqueror? RC2 Is Out 329
jonathan_ingram writes: "There has been a lot of discussion recently in Slashdot about sound compression formats. Much has been focused on
Ogg Vorbis, but the most recent version available has been a beta released in Feburary.
Today, RC2 of Vorbis
has been released. The most important of the
many changes
is
channel coupling,
which means that Vorbis can now encode bitsteams at a much lower
bitrate than before.
Try it out today!"
Re:Patent Pending? (Score:3, Insightful)
Why use ogg vorbis? (Score:4, Insightful)
Think of it like voting. Your apathy will cost you your freedom.
Re:Why Ogg is important (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't think that MS artificially limiting the encoder bitrate will help Ogg at all. Rather, it will encourage XP users to use wma, which, conveniently, is installed right along side the mp3 encoder.
Can you imagine your (mother|father|grandparents|dog) saying "Hmm...this mp3 sounds shoddy, I think I'll go install this complete other encoder that I've never heard of that none of my friends use", rather than "Hmm...this mp3 sounds shoddy, I think I'll use this other encode that's right here, endorsed by MS and compatible with 90% of the PCs bought in the past two years"?[1]
The way that I'm trying to help Ogg amongst my friends is by encoding all my CDs in Ogg format, and sharing them around. If anyone wants to listen to them, they have to go and get the Winamp (or Sonique, etc...) plugin to listen to it. This way, a whole lot of my friends have been exposed to this new format. A few of them have liked the quality enough to try to figure out how to encode their own CDs in this format.
[1]True, I can't see anyone I know saying either, but this is Slashdot; don't let the facts get in the way of a good point, right?
Why Ogg is important (Score:5, Insightful)
"I don't think Ogg is as good as compression X, so why use it?"
Answers:
- You don't have to use it. Just support it. Be aware of it's existance. One day, it may be better than compression X.
- Should MP3 technology get hijacked by the corperate world (more so than it is today), we have an alternative that works, even if you feel it isn't the best sound in the world.
- Two researchers working on the same goal in different streams and parts of the world is a Good Thing (tm). Prevents information hoarding and management on bahalf of corperate interests.
(going off memory for the rest of this, maybe I'm wrong in some claims)
Interestingly enough, XP includes an mp3 encoder, but it only encodes up to some stupidly low bitrate (128? 64?). Since many people won't go out looking for another encoder, they will blindly encode at low bitrates.
Ironically, in the long run, I think mp3s popularity will help Ogg
People will always look at the "is X better than Y" when comparing technologies. What they are missing is that many, many industries are as far ahead as they are right now due to competing projects by seperate scientific/mathematical efforts. Finally, seperate projects also allow for validation of efforts. If, in some far off evil world, mp3s patent owner X says, "I can't improve sound quality, because that would break this and that.", a seperate camp of researchers can say, "bullshit! you're just saying that because MS is paying to help drive users to windows media". Or whatever the case may be.
The value of parallel research is almost always more than the sum of the parts.
Isn't this missing the whole point ? (Score:0, Insightful)
I am fed up to the back teeth of these criminal scum who ruthlessly and without any conscience whatsoever steal music and then brag about it on IRC.
Last week some guy was saying how he had about 40 Gigabytes of 'ripped' MP3s on his machine. By my calculations (assume a CD cost $14) that means he has stolen the equivalent of about $30000.
If he stole that from a bank he would quite rightly be in prison. Are we supposed to think it is a lesser crime, simply because he used a computer ?
Lower bitrates for smaller audio files. (Score:3, Insightful)
Why would you want lower bitrates?
This question is moderated as "Flamebait". Often moderators don't do very well, I think. The emphasis seems to be on disapproving, rather than approving.
This is a reasonable question. And here is an answer: I'd like to use lower bit rates to make smaller audio files. I do international tech support sometimes, and speaking is 5 times faster than writing. Sometimes an audio file is the best way of responding.
Ogg produces great-sounding voice files.
Anyone know of a recording application? I'm having trouble finding one that is suitable. A Windows version will work; I'd like a Linux recorder also.
Re:OggiVorbophoniwhatigoggit (Score:2, Insightful)
Monty
Ogg created due to Patent problems (Score:2, Insightful)
You own a patent, you get the tech. to become widely accepted then you crack down by sending nasty letters to everyone.
Don't think it could happen. Humm, the DMCA is a law created to make sure it does. Corporate interests are suddenly creating the future, not the acedemics and scientists. No, like Professor Felten, they are threatened.
So, support Ogg, GNU and everyone else who is protecting your Freedom. There is a larger purpose to their work which most people are just discovering.
Freedom you say? Yes, Freedom, look at Dmitry Sklyarov -- he sat in jail...
Pay-per-view books?
http://www.anti-dmca.org [anti-dmca.org]
Re:MP3 is more than a music format (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Why would I want to give up MP3s? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why Ogg is important (Score:2, Insightful)
Throughout the history of time people have brought up an alternative to entrenched products, and naturally people ask the same question "Why should I switch?" While it's often seems like a no-brainer for the "salesperson", it really is a completely valid question that deserves a valid answer. If product A & B are functionally equal and today I am use to product A and product B's only advantage is that it's not product A, well then most people will say "thanks but no thanks". This is the problem that Linux faces on the desktop, and the simple reality is that saying that Microsoft might request the organs of your firstborn at some future point isn't enough to push most people to adopt something new.
This same opposition to change is the reason why Windows Media's format hasn't taken off: People are use to MP3s, and they already have their collection. Even with MS saying it's 1/2 the size for the same quality level, to most users that's barely adequate to make it worthwhile to change.
OggiVorbophoniwhatigoggit - dumb or smart? (Score:2, Insightful)
If, in fact, ogg proves to be simpler than MP3, than having it called ogg is ok.
Will the next improved version be called Tarzan?
Ogg is the great OSS success story... (Score:5, Insightful)
While this is strictly my opinion, these are the reasons I beleive this:
1. Xiph has spent a great deal of time on the niceties of the format. As much, or moreso than the format itself. They've made sure that anyone can encode high-quality OGGs with both a command line and a 'droplet' style encoder. They've also made sure that anyone can play oggs with plugins for all the most popular MP3 players. Their player libraries are all LGPL'd, making it so that anyone else can include OGG functionality in plugin-style to their application.
2. Because of the LGPL'd libraries, developers and publishers can use OGG format audio for free, rather than paying a patent-fee to the Fraunhoeffer institue. This is a pretty major thing, since it deducts five dollars from the cost of any given software distribution. Not a lot for a single game, but think of the money that a popular company like Verant would save by distributing their next game with an Ogg-based soundtrack. Ogg translates directly to monetary savings!
3. MP3 is compatiable with Stereo CD streams. That's great, but you really can't encode Dolby 5.1 audio without sacrificing quality. Ogg can do 255 channels, making it 'Dolby 5.1' ready. DVD Audio ain't gonna stay copy-protected for long, and when it's protection goes, you can be sure that the people encoding it will use Ogg instead of mp3 so that there is no quality loss.
4. MP3 is a dirty word if you work for an RIAA company. There are now dozens of firms who work to track down file-traders on P2P networks, IRC, Websites, and FTP sites. They aren't searching for Ogg's yet. As it becomes more and more difficult to trade MP3's, people will turn to Ogg like people who used Napster turned to Bearshear and other Gnutella clients.
5. Ogg offers significant quality improvements over MP3. Windows Media offers these same kind of improvements, but they come at the cost of restrictive Microsoft policy such as limited bit rates and 'digital rights management' schemes. Since Ogg format doesn't even contain hooks for digital rights, I think I know where the majority of Audiophiles are going to be looking for their online audio fixes.
6. The Vorbig Fishy ROCKS!
Like I said, just my opinions...
Re:Not all it's cracked up to be... (Score:2, Insightful)
That said, I'm not going to reencode all of my mp3s. Why not? In some cases, I don't have the originals any more, and re-encoding from mp3 to ogg seems silly. In one case, because it would mean throwing away a cd full of music and burning a new one, which seems wastefull. What I will do is STOP encoding to mp3, and start using ogg instead. I can't hear a difference, especially through my pc's lousy speakers and sound card.
I also don't see that anyone is going to care if I reencode my mp3s. The software I'd use to do it wouldn't be sending reports to anyone, so how are the companies to know? I'm certainly not going to write them a letter telling them... that's pointless and obnoxious. And I already HAVE the mp3 encoders, so it's not like anyone will notice that I'm not downloading it. *shrug* I'll make the change because I think it works as well, and it's a (socially) better program.
Anyway, I'll stop rambling now.
-Carik