AAC vs. OGG vs. MP3

Discussion in 'General Mac Discussion' started by cb911, Apr 29, 2003.

  1. cb911 macrumors 601

    cb911

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2002
    Location:
    BrisVegas, Australia
    #1
    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?
     
  2. evoluzione macrumors 68020

    evoluzione

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2002
    Location:
    down the road, that's where i'll always be
    #2
    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???
     
  3. settledown macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2003
    Location:
    pittsburgh
    #3
    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.
     
  4. sparkleytone macrumors 68020

    sparkleytone

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2001
    Location:
    Greensboro, NC
    #4
    Re: ogg vorbis eol'd

    my itunes plays OGG files. i don't have an iPod. so start it back up baby.
     
  5. Websnapx2 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    #5
    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.
     
  6. NavyIntel007 macrumors 65816

    NavyIntel007

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2002
    Location:
    Tampa, FL
    #6
    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)
     
  7. Websnapx2 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    #7
    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?
     
  8. jethroted macrumors 6502a

    jethroted

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Location:
    Cyberspace
    #8
    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.
     
  9. Eniregnat macrumors 68000

    Eniregnat

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2003
    Location:
    In your head.
    #9
    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.
     
  10. evoluzione macrumors 68020

    evoluzione

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2002
    Location:
    down the road, that's where i'll always be
    #10
    Re: ogg vorbis eol'd


    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. :)
     
  11. Taft macrumors 65816

    Taft

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago
    #12
    Re: ogg vorbis eol'd

    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 :rolleyes:

    Taft
     
  12. patrick0brien macrumors 68040

    patrick0brien

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2002
    Location:
    The West Loop
    #13
    -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.
     
  13. Eniregnat macrumors 68000

    Eniregnat

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2003
    Location:
    In your head.
    #14
    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.
     
  14. JesseJames macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2003
    Location:
    How'd I get here? How can I leave?
    #15
    Only the hardcore audiophiles care about this. :D
    Vast majority of people just want good clean sound.
     
  15. Eniregnat macrumors 68000

    Eniregnat

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2003
    Location:
    In your head.
    #16
    I agree. Lets face it, AM raido still has it place in this world.
     
  16. cb911 thread starter macrumors 601

    cb911

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2002
    Location:
    BrisVegas, Australia
    #17
    hey, Websnapx2. thanks for posting that link, it was just what i was looking for.:D
     
  17. CubeHacker macrumors 65816

    CubeHacker

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2003
  18. cb911 thread starter macrumors 601

    cb911

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2002
    Location:
    BrisVegas, Australia
    #19
    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!! :D
     
  19. CubeHacker macrumors 65816

    CubeHacker

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2003
    #20
    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.
     
  20. mc68k macrumors 68000

    mc68k

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2002
    #21
    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.
     
  21. mac15 macrumors 68040

    mac15

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2001
    Location:
    Sydney
    #22
    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
     
  22. cb911 thread starter macrumors 601

    cb911

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2002
    Location:
    BrisVegas, Australia
    #23
    i never thought of AAC taking less power to decode. another benefit of AAC. :D
     
  23. Websnapx2 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    #24
    no worries :D
     
  24. Taft macrumors 65816

    Taft

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago
    #25
    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
     

Share This Page