Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

AAC vs. OGG vs. MP3

cb911

cb911

macrumors 601
Original poster
i just saw this on slashdot.org. it says that there is some site that compares the three, and OGG comes out on top. i tried to see the comparisons, but the site was down when i tried.

can anyone post some info about how AAC is supposed to be better than OGG, and while we're at it, is AAC better than WMA?
 
that's exactly what i was wondering, i was hoping that itunes 4 would implement ogg vorbis, but, i guess if aac is better than mp3, it'll do. so yeah, which does come out on top in everyone's opinion???
 
ogg vorbis eol'd

OGG VORBIS will never be used so drop it already. I dont care that it is better or not...it just simply will not ever be added to itunes/ipod. so stop it.
 
Re: ogg vorbis eol'd

Originally posted by settledown
OGG VORBIS will never be used so drop it already. I dont care that it is better or not...it just simply will not ever be added to itunes/ipod. so stop it.
Click to expand...

my itunes plays OGG files. i don't have an iPod. so start it back up baby.
 
Oooooo! Isn't he friendly!! AAC Files are near perfect with small file sizes. From my understanding (and, I admit i could be wrong), ogg files are easier to remove the right protection. If that is true, It will never have industry push.
 
Someone on the Slashdot Forum for this article said that AAC would not be adopted because Apple had no hardware influence because of it's marketshare.

I posted hmm...

Mouse
Firewire
Airport
PDA
Bluetooth (first wide-spread)
 
Too true, the PC world more often than not follow the mac's lead. How ever the ogg is mostly used by unix users is it not?
 
Who cares? AAC can do Cd quality. That is good enough for me, and as good as I will ever need. As long as it sounds better than mp3 or a tape I'm happy. OGG may have better specs, but the music I listen to doesn't need it. All my music is old punk from 79-82. I don't need much fidelity to keep up to that.
 
Audiophiles are never happy with what's new. CDs were supposed to be near perfect, and the "near" modifier is its detraction to them. For those that like CD quality, MP3s just don't cut it. And so it goes. It's not hard to hear people talk about vinyl’s vibrancy, or the ability to over saturate a tape, or X’s depth.

I think the point is how well does the format protect digital rights while giving the average listener the fidelity that they want.
 
Re: ogg vorbis eol'd

Originally posted by settledown
OGG VORBIS will never be used so drop it already. I dont care that it is better or not...it just simply will not ever be added to itunes/ipod. so stop it.
Click to expand...


ooh, easy tiger. very apt username btw. i was just merely curious, i'm happy with aac, i'd like a higher bit rate, but that's just me being pedantic. chill out. 🙂
 
Re: ogg vorbis eol'd

Originally posted by settledown
OGG VORBIS will never be used so drop it already. I dont care that it is better or not...it just simply will not ever be added to itunes/ipod. so stop it.
Click to expand...

WRONG!!!!

Maybe APPLE will never use OGG Vorbis in the iPod, but with a little work you can use it with the iPod. And you can get a plug-in to use it with iTunes.

Thanks for the mean-spirited and blatently WRONG post. Kepp up the good work 🙄

Taft
 
-Gents

This is not a smack on anyone in particuar, but more of a reality check.

If we were truly interested in high-quality audio, I think we'd be all over SACD with the 24bit/96khz recording qualities. But then these haven't sold well, so the question is: How much is quality a concern?

What seems to be the rage is the portability of mp3's. And that's better value that quality.

We're not about so spend $1,000 for an SACD player and $15,000 for the Bang & Olufsen speakers required to really hear the difference.

To argue the finer points of the difference in quality of mp3's, v. OGG v. AAC seems to be a little wasteful to me.
 
Easy now, the best way to keep the flames down is not to light any more, or better yet to ignore it completely.

This is a game of statistics. Getting as close to the original wave is one way to test it, but may not represent the more subjective human ear. Play the formats and see if people can choose what they like the best. I have a little preset that I customized to introduce noise into audio files, where edits are done, so that the listener doesn’t notice that anything has transpired. The human ear is a complicated thing. Sometimes less noise isn't better. I guess what I am trying to point out that this is one test, one done completely by the numbers. Somebody should look at the hearing envelope of the average human ear, and then chart the formats and how they best interacted with that envelope. (Or questionably easier- try having 1500 humans compare the formats.) They all have their merits and detractions.
 
Originally posted by JesseJames
Only the hardcore audiophiles care about this. 😀
Vast majority of people just want good clean sound.
Click to expand...

I agree. Lets face it, AM raido still has it place in this world.
 
hey, Websnapx2. thanks for posting that link, it was just what i was looking for.😀
 
DOACleric, an interesting article. i guess the big question isn't what format provides the best quality, but what format is most portable/smallest possible file size with good quality.

go AAC!! 😀
 
In my opinion, size of compressed audio isn't that much of an issue these days. A lot of computer users these days have 80GB hard drives and broadband, and even the 10gb ipod can hold thousands of songs easily. If i could get a 128kbps AAC file at 3mb, and a 192kbps at 5mb, i'd easily eat the extra 2mb for a substancial increase in quality. Now, if i was trying to squeeze music on to a flash-memory based mp3 player, then yeah, i'd try to get the best bang for the space, but with a 10gb ipod, that just isn't a worry for most people.
 
i didnt see anybody mention battery life...on the iPod a bitstream is a bitstream whether it's 160 or 128 kB/s...so if you can decrease the bitstream 20% (128/160) and not hear a difference in a portable environment, then there's less HDD spinup.

Apple's AAC site says about AAC:

Improved decoding efficiency, requiring less processing power for decode

i think audio quality is a rather moot point unless you're not listening to encoded media in a portable setting. all the background noise you hear when you're on the go (not to mention the crappy headphones most ppl use) makes the quality sound the same on a fine level.
 
If it uses less CPU to decode it then its a much better format, especially if you are planning to use it on a portable play, ie the ipod. the less power the more battery life.

The one thing I like about Ogg is that its patent free. But AAC has a better ring to it
 
i never thought of AAC taking less power to decode. another benefit of AAC. 😀
 
Originally posted by DOACleric
In my opinion, size of compressed audio isn't that much of an issue these days. A lot of computer users these days have 80GB hard drives and broadband, and even the 10gb ipod can hold thousands of songs easily. If i could get a 128kbps AAC file at 3mb, and a 192kbps at 5mb, i'd easily eat the extra 2mb for a substancial increase in quality. Now, if i was trying to squeeze music on to a flash-memory based mp3 player, then yeah, i'd try to get the best bang for the space, but with a 10gb ipod, that just isn't a worry for most people.
Click to expand...

To counter this, I submit this site with a ton of listening tests. Ogg Vorbis is not always the winner. This is the page Ogg Vorbis supporters always link to, but there are many others out there.

http://ff123.net/links.html

Taft
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back