• .mp3 VS .ogg, which would be better for daily use?
    33 replies, posted
The .mp3 patent expired a while back. As I was recently downloading some songs, I started wondering if .ogg would be a 'better' format for all-around use. What are the differences in file size? Which has better 'quality'? (A la encoding at various bitrates, etc.) Which is suited better for daily use? (Listening to songs, storing them, using them in apps, etc.) Is one objectively superior to the other, or are they both strong in their own rights? Thanks.
OGG is objectively superior except in the case of application support. If everything you use supports OGG drop MP3 and either save space or have better quality using the same space. Vorbis tags are also way better than ID3 tags. Don't reencode the MP3 to OGG though, that's just the best of no worlds but if you have the lossless version then it would be worth converting that to OGG to replace MP3. Support should be 100% on Linux, Windows is mostly there but it's dependent on software, and Android is a crap shoot because most apps on there are made by monkeys.
Would it be possible, for instance, to have a website play a .ogg file (through whatever available means necessary) without any worries for incompatibility, or would MP3 be better suited for this?
https://kasko.helifreak.club/misc/03.%20Teardrop.ogg Should work fine.
MP3 is reknown I guess. But .ogg is almost universal as well, you can still play that shit on mobile devices with ease (unless you have a device from the stone ages). I've played .ogg files with Google Music and Samsung Music with no problems exported from Audacity.
.flac is the way to go
i mainly use MP3 because it just works
320kb/s MP3 has good enough sound quality for almost all purposes, small filesize and is compatible with everything under the sun. The ogg Vorbis vs MP3 debate was relevant back in the day when devices had tiny storage capacities so people would encode songs at lower bitrates where the quality loss was more noticeable. But these days, if you're concerned about quality, just go straight for FLAC.
.ogg is also an open standard unlike mp3 which you have to pay a license for if you want to use it in anything commercial tho.
Not for phones tho, it's just wasting a scarce resource (space) at that point. I keep flacs on my PC and transcode everything to ogg before putting it on my phone. If you're worried about the quality you'll get through your shitty phone DAC & earbuds you can still crank up the vorbis transcoder to placebo settings and still have half the file size. The filesize is up to you, both go by bitrates, e.g. 320 kbps for mp3. Ogg vorbis will have better quality per the bitrate by quite a bit. Opus is even better and is the successor to vorbis, but support for it is kinda eh ogg if you can get it (don't convert mp3 to ogg, converting a lossy format to a lossy format is bad.) Ogg is pretty much objectively superior in every way, aside from support.
I use flac so my brain doesn't beats me with a stick saying "IT ISN'T THE BEST" Plus, the phone handles it anyway so, and its just like 3gb worth of songs anyway. Does the music app in Xperias play ogg?
Who dis?
The absolutely overwhelming majority of people cannot distinguish between MP3 320 and FLAC in blind tests. For most music listeners, FLAC is just a really good way to waste storage space.
What about HE-AAC or Opus? I've heard good things about both, Opus especially.
Ages ago, I set up foobar2000 to use Apple's AAC encoder included into the QuickTime API, because I had an iPhone at the time, and ogg wasn't really an option. It's AAC-LC with TVBR "quality" set to 91. It's a recommended config I found on hydrogen audio, I think; and I've always been happy with size/quality Massive Attack - Teardrop
Both are decent and are absolutely not worth using due to nothing supporting them at all.
more like the vast majority cant distinguish between 192 MP3 and 320 MP3 havent seen any abx test where someone could tell a difference to flac
I swear I can tell the difference between different MP3 bitrates but that could totally be completely down to placebo.
Ahh dude. Massive Attack. Now I'm thinking of Neo with "Dissolved Girl" playing in the background- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Smwrw4sNCxE
I made my decision to use .ogg some time after helifreak replied but it's good to see the discussion is continuing. I will ask what the better codec to use is, whether that's opus or vorbis. At the moment, I've been using VLC media player to convert any FLAC files of songs I might have to .ogg through Vorbis using VLC. Any better software / codec to use? I myself cannot hear much difference between MP3/OGG in comparison to FLAC, and the extra file size really isn't worth it for that.
Yeah but flac is the best
Hey now there's dozens of people who use WAV over FLAC because they're convinced it sounds better.
Honestly everyone should try this out How Well Can You Hear Audio Quality? before getting caught up in file types. Unless you already invested hundreds in equipment, you're not gonna be able to tell the difference between 320kbps MP3 and lossless.
The truth is that FLAC really does sound better. But that's entirely down to placebo. As previously stated, in blind tests nobody can tell the difference.
Flac or not when working with audio I'd rather use the Flac than an mp3, wav is preferable but the size is too much 99% of the time
In a work environment you'll be 100% using wav or aac 99.99% of the time. Some game audio engines will compress to .ogg.
there's many types of bitrates for mp3 so yeah once i found flac's for pendulum music the difference was very noticeable
I know, I mean for archive reasons I just "compress" WAVs to FLACs if they aren't 32bit and store it that way. No loss but more free space.
The fuck is up with these bump bots, now they've started creating random comments by copypasting what others have said in the thread before?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.