3 ms·
I've dealt with the ogg container format a little and from what I saw it seemed quite reasonable, at least for the codecs it is typically used for, but for the
by adrusi 10y ago
I've dealt with the ogg container format a little and from what I saw it seemed quite reasonable, at least for the codecs it is typically used for, but for the sake of argument I'll assume everything in that article is correct.
In that case, ogg competes because it beats AAC on quality per unit size (low bitrate vorbis supposedly beats out low bitrate AAC at least, and I guess opus is supposed to be really good), and FLAC, which usually comes in its own container format but sometimes is distributed in an ogg, has smaller file sizes than ALAC.
I don't think AAC had much traction before it became the iTunes Store format, and ALAC remains one of the least common codecs. Both of them would have lost out to vorbis and flac. Perhaps the reason they were chosen is because they have standardized DRM solutions (at least AAC).
- jfindley 10y agoI think people interested in AAC probably aren't using it at low bitrates, so I'm not sure how meaningful that is. At more reasonable bitrates for people who care about quality (and thus are using AAC over MP3 in the first place) I don't think there's enough difference to discern on most listening devices - but I've not done any sort of scientific testing between the two myself, so I could very well be wrong on this. FLAC vs ALAC is a much stronger argument IMO - though elsewhere in these comments there's a suggestion that ALAC was chosen as it was cheaper to decode on Apple's hardware at the time, which if true would be a reasonable motivation.