Rockbox Technical Forums

Rockbox General => Rockbox General Discussion => Topic started by: psycho_maniac on September 14, 2005, 01:46:13 AM

Title: ogg vs. mp3
Post by: psycho_maniac on September 14, 2005, 01:46:13 AM

hello which is better? ive been listeing ot mp3 most of my life and now (i finialy decided to give ogg a try. got a encoder and converetd a song ot .ogg and i cant really tell a difference.  is there really a difference? i just want to know advancements for ogg. thanks for your input

Title: Re: ogg vs. mp3
Post by: nobby on September 14, 2005, 03:19:22 AM

the benefit of ogg is transparency (ie, it seems cd quality to you) at a lower bitrate, and thus a smaller file. If you don't need the space, stick with mp3 for compatibility and battery life. (ogg takes more cpu time to decode, thus draining the battery slightly faster)

Title: Re: ogg vs. mp3
Post by: Assimalyst on September 14, 2005, 04:52:11 AM

You shouldn't convert MP3's to OGG, they're both lossy codecs, thus you lose some quality converting to mp3, then lose more converting to ogg.

If you're encoding into any lossy codec always encode straight from the original, full quality, source.

Title: Re: ogg vs. mp3
Post by: kenshin on September 14, 2005, 01:40:39 PM

Ogg Vorbis is also a completely open codec. There are no patents held by anyone, if that's at all important to you, ... Also, if you have need for gapless it's native in Ogg while in MP3 only a LAME encoder hack can achieve gapless (AFAIK, I only use Ogg Vorbis). Ogg Vorbis comments are a little more flexible than the ID3 tags you find in MP3 files.

Title: Re: ogg vs. mp3
Post by: nobby on September 14, 2005, 04:17:13 PM

ogg = better
mp3 = more compatible

simple as that.

Title: Re: ogg vs. mp3
Post by: Road Runner on September 17, 2005, 05:06:40 PM

WOW! the amazing search option has done it again! (that would be google)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vorbis#Codec_comparisons


Ogg sounds better. One of the important things is the coder cuts less of the bass, So it sounds better. read about it. I only code to ogg but it really drains battery on the player  :(

Title: Re: ogg vs. mp3
Post by: kenshin on September 19, 2005, 12:51:26 AM

Quote from: Road Runner on September 17, 2005, 05:06:40 PM

I only code to ogg but it really drains battery on the player :(

Even at the expense of more costly decoding I still regularly get over 10 hours of playback when switching back and forth between Ogg and FLAC.

Title: Re: ogg vs. mp3
Post by: Road Runner on September 23, 2005, 07:05:25 AM

Well, I don't.

Maybe I do, anyhow, it feels very short, but I can't complain because there are so much options in rockbox that I almost never just play songs. about a week ago I've made a serious battery test playing on the iriver firmware an mp3 directory coded at about 112~128 kbps, the battery lasted  for more then 16 hours, and i've had the player for about two years now (!)

Title: Re: ogg vs. mp3
Post by: wrecker on September 24, 2005, 07:01:56 PM

I tested fully the other day a got just under 17 hours playing mostly 192kbps MP3s.

I've no OGG files though, so can't really compare and can't be bothered to convert them all!