Kara-Moon Forum

Mostly I prefer ogg format for music files. On my own site (which is woefully in need of modernising) I put both ogg and mp3 so people can grab what they like. For space reasons this isn't usually an option here so I tend to go with (what I think is) the majority and put mp3s up.

So what do people really prefer on here?

I have to use MP3’s.  I have some computer illiterate friends who like to listen and download my music and they only know MP3. If I changed the format I’d have to spend an enormous amount of time helping these friends out.

What Mario said.

8)

Wyatt

At this point-since I have Audacity,I don't really have a preference...but I don't understand the benefits that OGG has over MP3...at least none that I can hear...maybe my ears are still too ignorant to know the difference. :-\

 ???
Well ....
I used to always post MP3, but after reading various posts on quality, etc, I started to post OGG.
One of the great things about Reaper is that it can load and export to most file formats.
It really doesn't make any difference to me as I work almost solely on headphones, so don't appreciate any difference.
Now that I know some people can't use OGG I shall change back.  :-X
 ;)
James

There are actually two reasons for preferring ogg - Technical & Legal

Technically it is a far better quality compression method. The difference is greatest on music with a lot of high frequencies such as cymbals etc. I admit that as I'm getting older I'm finding it less noticeable myself :(

Legally there are patents that apply to the mp3 format (due to expire in a few years) and the patent holder has been getting steadily more aggressive with manufacturers of 'infringing' devices. There can never be such issues with ogg which is totally royalty free.

I prefer OGG.
In my opinion, but I can be wrong, wether you hear the difference or not, depends on the type of music you make.
I can't hear the difference on relativly simple music, say a song who has 2 too 4 tracks, all with very clearly defined instruments, all with there proper frequency range.
Once you enter in the domain of electronic music where you have 10-20 tracks, all fighting for there proper place, where you need very accurate EQ and sometimes even dynamic EQ, I can clearly hear the difference between an OGG and a MP3. I can even hear the difference between a WAV and a OGG file in this case.

I'm sure Oren will confirm this, or tell me I'm an idiot  ;D

k

To me it's mostly a question of compatibility - I know most players, software or hardware, support mp3 out of the box. Also, there's not that much a difference to my ears between a well-mastered mp3 and ogg (certainly if you take the higher resolution mp3). To be honest, I think the speakers and earphones someone uses are always going to be a much bigger impact than the format of the music itself.

Please, let's not come to a situation where years from now some people claim that the new standard megabit res mp3000 files don't have the same great old-school sound that the wonderful old mp3 compression algorithms had... ;)

As members of Kara-Moon, we are associated with some of the most musically capable and technically adept people, anywhere. In this context, many of the audio tools that suffice for ordinary folks will simply not perform well enough for our purposes. We are enthusiasts, specialists.

On another thread there was talk of "dumbing down" a composition so it would be more accessible to the average listener, and what a tragedy that would be. I think the same concept applies to our audio tools. We need to employ the most appropriate software or hardware tool, regardless of  the current fashion, or "what everybody else does" or "what most people use".

People learn by example; those who love good sound will switch to whatever audio tools they see us using. In that sense, we have a responsibility, as audio enthusiasts, to set a good example.

There are also legal and moral implications involving software audio tools:
I like the characteristic sounds of both Ogg Vorbis and MP3 - there are no legal hassles surrounding Ogg Vorbis, it is open-source, so it is the more responsible choice.
I like the sound of both MonkeysAudio and FLAC - FLAC is open-source, and functional in Windows, Mac, and Linux, so it is the better choice.
Like "folderol", I have found the open-source audio tools (and operating systems)to be at least the equal of the commercial varieties, but not subject to the advertising hype, legal hassles, and developmental restrictions normally associated with corporate products.

For these reasons, Ogg Vorbis is my choice of compressed audio format.
(Incidentally, for those who don't re-master a file in preparation for encoding to compressed format, Ogg Vorbis will preserve the high frequencies better than MP3, and to my ears, sound better.)

And no, Kara, I don't think you're any kind of idiot... :D... just a musician, and that's why I like it here...  :;

Following on (logically?) from this, I wonder if it would be practical to put a sticky up somewhere obvious for newbies, simply explaining what the different file formats are, and how to install free players/converters for the major platforms.

Here's a beginning... copy, paste and edit - 'til we get it right :D

Full size files:
           Wave......................................... file extension: .wav

Compressed "lossless" files:
           MonkeysAudio.............................. file extension: .ape
           Free Lossless Audio Codec (FLAC).... file extension: .flac

Compressed "lossy" files:
           Fraunhofer MP3............................. file extension: .mp3
           Lame MP3.................................... file extension: .mp3
           Ogg Vorbis................................... file extension: .ogg

                        work, work, work ::)

I think the term is (file)extension, not suffix, but it may be that both terms are good. I'd also recommend that we include pointers to the most common variants with each format, such as for wav: 44.1 kHz/16 bit (CD quality audio) and 48 kHz/24 bit (DVD quality audio).