This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Ogg article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Please check Help with Ogg Vorbis for advice on playing sound files on Wikipedia and other places.
If you would like to see a list of all Ogg Vorbis files available at Wikipedia (most of them under the public domain), go to Wikipedia:Sound/list.
-- Saoshyant talk / contribs (I don't like Wikipedophiles) 14:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Should it be pointed out for each codec whether it is lossy or lossless? Someone just changed FLAC's opening text, "an audio codec", to "a lossless audio codec". This is fine, I suppose, even if it's redundant as FLAC's description text goes on to explain its lossless nature.
So, should it be explicitly pointed out for each codec whether it is lossy or lossless? And how should this be achieved in a consistent manner?
I already did some work on the organization of the codecs list, hopefully making it more immediately understandable and readable. Maybe, just as I broke down the codecs to "audio" and "video", they should also be broken into levels of "lossy" and "lossless". I'll go ahead and do this, as I'm really the only person that consistently edits these pages, but if someone has a better idea: feel free to edit, of course. -- Jizzbug
The list in the Ogg codecs section should be presented as a table.-- Michael Ray
This page has good links to the codecs frequently embedded in Ogg containers but says essentially nothing about the bitstream format itself, its uses, or implications. I'm going to make a major rewrite of this in the next day or so. -- Heywood
Hello Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason,
I restored the link to user help. Here is the rationale:
Thank you for your understanding. Opus33 17:04, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
this needs more info about the concept of a "wrapper". how is the vorbis or theora or flac file contained within the ogg file? why would anyone do this in the first place? can all of these "codecs" exist outside of ogg files, like .flac files can? (i didn't know you could put flac files inside oggs until just now. you can, right? everything in the codecs section can be put inside one?) etc. - Omegatron 18:27, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
"The segments provide a way to group segments into packets", this appears to be recursive definition to me... does the second segment just mean a chunk of data ?
This article and Theora and Xiph.Org Foundation make it sound as if the technologies where developed as the Ogg Project. Is that true? -- Hhielscher 01:34, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yes I followed the link and I'm not much wiser. What is needed is an eplanation as to what ogg codecs actually do and why you might need one. Is a codecs what you need if you want to transfer the tracks from your CDs to ogg format? Is kaudiocreator a front end for an ogg codecs? It seems to me that if you know enougth about ogg to understand this article you don't need to read it. Dejvid 15:46, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
If a concept is new then it is much easier to understand in a specific context. What I was trying to say is that what is needed is an explanation of what a codecs is in relation to ogg files. I'm begining to grasp that what I really need to understand is vorbis. Vorbis is mentioned on the page but only as a codecs and of course at the top to say that some people wrongly call vorbis ogg, ( but nothing to help the reader to realize should they have been under that misconception). What I have on my hard disk is files with .ogg at the end and these are the things that produce music when I play them. Those are the things that are real to me. What is needed is something like, on this page, "The audio files with a .ogg extention on your disk are codecs like vorbis contained in a ogg container format". I say "like" because that is just my guess as to what they are and is no doubt incorrect. (Thank you for replying) Dejvid 18:03, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Container formats may well not be new but they will be new to most people coming to this page. Dejvid 17:49, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
This list doesn't belong in the article. It should be merged with hardware list at Vorbis, or the one at the Xiph wiki.
Does someone know what the rationale is for having a single MIME type for all OGG files? Isn't the purpose of MIME types to convey as much information about the type of file as possible? With Ogg being a container format, the fact that something is "application/ogg" doesn't say much. We now have Theora videos on Commons, all of which have the same MIME type as the Vorbis sound files. How am I meant to tell Firefox to use mplayer for the Theora videos, and XMMS for the sounds, especially as all have the same extension as well?-- Eloquence * 03:24, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Along the same lines, why is application/ogg
the only registered MIME type for Ogg data? The audio/ogg
media type hasn't been
registered with
IANA for
Vorbis or
Speex or any other Ogg audio. Nor has video/ogg
been [
registered] for
Theora or any other Ogg video.
Brianary (
talk)
14:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
The article says, "At its inception, the Ogg project was thought to be somewhat ambitious given the power of the PC hardware of the time" without actually saying when the project began, making the statement highly ambiguous. Theshibboleth 11:56, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
I reckon it lacks many things, like when did development start, among others. If there's an editor with good knowledge on this issue, please improve that section. -- Saoshyant 15:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
On Wikipedia, this stupid file is everywhere. If I want to play a sound, its in .ogg! Try a more conventional file, ok? Like .avi .mid or anything normal. My computer doesn't read this file. - 71.224.24.99 19:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
HAHAHAHAH! 5 hours later and I figured out how to upload the file in OGG formate. Just check the image link aforementioned for more information. Wikipedia truly sucks when it comes to being able to upload stuff! Truly... -- CyclePat ( talk) 03:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC) There is no good reason NOT to use ogg when given the chance. Technically, mp3 is already outdated by the AAC format. Ogg generally stores files in better quality then mp3, and uses less space. It is available to everyone, as is built into most audio player, such as Winamp. Coolgamer ( talk) 22:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I would like to point out that it is not available to anyone. You must realize that many, and by many I mean most, corporations use Windows software and do not allow employees to install additional software without approval. Many schools operate under similar rules, and doing so violates the Terms of Usage for many students. So by only using .ogg as the only sound file for Wikipedia, your discriminating against a large number of potential users. Im not saying dump ogg. but maybe what wikipedia needs is a built in audio player that does not require a user to download or install software. The stated institutions are extremely concerned about the saftey of their networks. Also, its seems Wikipedia is in effect supporting Vorbis. Shouldnt an encyclopedia be neutral to all formats, propietary or not? A truely "free" encyclopeida should be usable without having to download software, free or not. "And anyone can play Ogg Vorbis files — even if it doesn't work "out of the box" on their operating systems, they can easily install software that can handle the format. " The bottom line is, no they all can't. Xcalibur27 ( talk) 18:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Xcalibur27 is correct, Ogg is not usable by people in corporations and schools in the USA, due to it not being in general distribution on the major platforms. There is no 'choice' in that matter, but it really makes no difference, because schools and corporations do not use Wikipedia. By its nature Wikipedia is not a reliable reference source, and as such is not validated by those organizations for any credible citations, so those in the aforementioned institutions will not miss hearing ogg sound bytes. Thus it is left to the 'at home user' to equip their home computer with ogg capability, as that user is the only one who might care to hear the ogg sound bytes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.135.154.254 ( talk) 08:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
J.M. On a Windows XP SP2 PC, from the front page today on japanese cicada's "Sorry, your system does not appear to have any supported player software. Please download a player." So no, it is not on all Windows PC's. And while "There is no 'choice' in that matter, but it really makes no difference, because schools and corporations do not use Wikipedia. By its nature Wikipedia is not a reliable reference source, and as such is not validated by those organizations for any credible citations, so those in the aforementioned institutions will not miss hearing ogg sound bytes" has some credible points, i.e. no wikipeida is not a reliable source. I have heard quite the opposite for elementary and middle school teachers, and even some high school teachers. All of whom dont require the stricter codes that universities or professionals use. So it does matter to them. I realize I am fighting an uphill battle, and am in a huge minority, but if no one ever stood up for the "little guy" nothing would ever change. Now, J.M., your telling me, little Sally, who is in 6th grade, who dosent have a computer at home, who has to use either the computer at the library or at school, has a choice, because they dont allow her to install the needed software? Its not her choice she does not own a computer. It is not her choice that those are her only two options. I am sorry but it seems to me that the spriit of wikipeida is to provide a free online encyclopedia, whom anyone can use to find information on (accuracy is irrelavant), and who can also add their knoweldge too. This would mean that anyone, who can get on any computer, should be able to type in wikipedia.org, and be able to fully access everything. Regardless if they have a system admisistrator who wont allow for the installation of a 3rd party program. As long as they have internet and a browser, than they should be able to fully access this site. Maybe I am wrong, and all of wikipedia shouldnt be available to everyone.
Xcalibur27 (
talk)
17:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I thought I saw a pronounciation of "Ogg" on this article before. It should be included again if it was removed or added if it was never there. -- 70.111.218.254 14:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
http://records.tastytronic.net/ogg.html
Hi. According to a WIRED article, many companies do not use OGG because of the possibility of parts of it being covered by other patents. Any info's on that? -- Chris 73 | Talk 11:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
is "patent-free" appropriate language
Anon 15:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
A crucial piece of information omitted from this article is where the information about the individual data streams is stored. How does a program reading an OGG file know that, e.g., it contains a single channel of linear PCM audio data or two channels of Ogg Vorbis compressed audio data, or whatever? Bill 20:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Could someone write a sentence or two on Xiphs harebrained decision to have one common file extension for all possible contents of Oggs (unlike e.g. m4a, mp4, m4v etc.) I can't write it myself, because, well, it probably wouldn't quite meet Wikipedia NPOV standards:
I don't want to open movies in winamp. I just d/led a video clip from another wikipedia entry and had to rename it (to ogm; they may not strictly be the same but close enough, and Tobias Whatshisname at least doesn't hate his users, unlike Xiph and Wikimedia), a completely unnecessary step and sure to confuse average users who have no fucking clue what a container format is, nor an interest in finding out (and rightfully so).
I really don't see why you should need hacks/helper applications or other overengineered ways to distinguish audio from video files when Windows provides a perfectly fine way of doing so, just because some idiots look at the code ("it's the same kind of file *whinewhine*") instead of the function ("no it isn't fucktards, the one is an audio file, the other a video file"). Thx 82.135.85.226 19:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
There is a draft of a Xiph recommendation to make more extensions (all but FLAC are 3-letter…). I myself am using extensions like “.theora.ogg“, “.theora+vorbis.ogg”, etc. for now. If this requires an article, there was one somewhere (don't remember - probably Slashdot or linux.org.ru). - AVRS 16:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Some software such as Handbrake are already utelizing .ogm for video.
Can someone please clean up my new metadata section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.202.179.68 ( talk) 14:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
The Metadata section seems to be totally out of date as is suggested in the section itself. I skimmed through the metadata wiki
page, it suggests that
M3F (Mulitmedia Metadata Format) is for the Ogg Container which aims to provide metadata for media streams(
relevant link)
I am not really sure how to revise/re-structure the section according to the present reality. It did be nice if someone takes up the job of re-constructing the section, I am ready to help.
R.Siddharth ( talk) 14:10, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
It might be an issue with the used infobox that logo is not displayed, so I added it as "icon". However, somebody with more knowledge about formating may try to fix the "infobox file format"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antonski ( talk • contribs) 14:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm trying to use wikitionary.org. I can lookup words, but when I click on the little speaker icon, an .ogg file downloads instead of playing a sound.
Do I need to install a plugin in my FireFox 3.0?
The word "mom" in wiktionary.org]
Kaydell ( talk) 04:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
It's been quite a while since I've used VB, but I do remember calling functions and subroutines from DLLs... I don't see why VB programmers would have to wait for an OCX to be released. Furthermore, I don't see how that entire section is even relevant. It's discussing a supposed limitation of Visual Basic that really has nothing to do with OGG. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.169.74.237 ( talk) 14:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I would tend to agree with the above regarding VB. It most likely refers to VB6, which does indeed have the ability to call DLLs or incorporate OCX controls. There are conceivable technical reasons why an OCX might be preferable to a DLL interface for VB6, I guess. However, VB6 is obsolescent and these days "Visual Basic" is just as likely to refer to VB.NET, a much more capable and complex product which has virtually all the functionality of C#. I'd agree that the VB6 paragraph is irrelevant in the context of this article. Rob Burbidge ( talk) 14:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I have added the Update template to the History section as it needs to be rewritten to reflect RFC 5334, published in September 2008. - Paul1337 ( talk) 14:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't know enough about this area, but should the phrase 'non copylefted' not actually read either 'copylefted' or 'non copyrighted'? I'd suggest avoiding the term copylefted, because I don't think it is widely enough known (amoung non-wikipedia editors of course!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thelem ( talk • contribs) 00:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, this statement doesn't make any sense. Doesn't 'non-copylefted = copyright?' Switchbladesista ( talk) 21:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I would like to learn more about the debate to include ogg in the HTML5 standard. There is a whole article here Ogg_controversy, but there should be a little in this article or at least a link, methinks. I'm not too computer literate, and don't feel comfortable making those changes myself.-- Lightenoughtotravel ( talk) 16:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Wish the article would speak to editing OGG files. Is OGG the 'purest' 'open' format for video? If not, then perhaps such could be added as related link? I realize that OGG is a container, but it is also listed on this wiki as _the_ preferred format for uploading video, so hopefully this question isn't too out of place on this discussion page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.217.148.21 ( talk) 04:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I removed a new section "Tools" added by user PaulBreadly, because it was not appropriate. User PaulBreadly added his section "Tools" with some shareware software and this contribution looks like an advertising. This user added the same software to several other articles (such as MPEG, AVI, 3GP, QuickTime and others) - see PaulBreadly's contributions. I think, there are also other free software converters and editors, not only shareware (see also Vorbis, Theora). I also think, there are other appropriate articles on Wikipedia about audio and video software - e.g. List of video editing software, Comparison of video editing software, Comparison of video encoders. -- 89.173.65.226 ( talk) 08:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
This article really seems biased, and doesn't even mention the fact that ogg has serious issues. It seems half of this talk page is about trying to convince people to use the format (wikipedia is not a political movement). The fact that something is patent free doesn't make it good.
From the table of contents from mp3:
There's a lot of negativity. There's not even a criticisms section in this article, and there are a lot of criticisms of this format.
--wbFrontier —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.173.105.170 ( talk) 22:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't dirac be added as a video format ? There is a spec for dirac in ogg, and it is supported by some players, e.g. vlc. I am going to go ahead and add it. If anybody disagrees they can remove it. Salsa man ( talk) 13:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
why isn't mogg mentioned (multitrack ogg, which I've seen used by pirates for rips of songs off rockband and such) I'm sure on the technical side it's just an audio file with more than 2 channels (one for each instrument) but I still think it should be mentioned — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.68.131.138 ( talk) 06:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
what is needed is a way of users to be able to download Ogg files in MP3 format. Not everyone wants to install drivers for this obscure format no one uses apart from Wikipedia. 87.112.127.60 ( talk) 22:59, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Upload?_e_pi_=7%2CPAGE_ID10%2C8624195026 Zinou Lizou ( talk) 22:18, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 5 external links on
Ogg. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 06:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ogg. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 20:47, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Ogg is a default format for alarms, notifications, ringtones and UI sounds in the Android OS phones, at least from Google, Samsung and LG. This format is supported in all Android versions. Should it be mentioned in the article? Yaroslav -- 109.252.109.131 ( talk) 15:55, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Ogg article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Please check Help with Ogg Vorbis for advice on playing sound files on Wikipedia and other places.
If you would like to see a list of all Ogg Vorbis files available at Wikipedia (most of them under the public domain), go to Wikipedia:Sound/list.
-- Saoshyant talk / contribs (I don't like Wikipedophiles) 14:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Should it be pointed out for each codec whether it is lossy or lossless? Someone just changed FLAC's opening text, "an audio codec", to "a lossless audio codec". This is fine, I suppose, even if it's redundant as FLAC's description text goes on to explain its lossless nature.
So, should it be explicitly pointed out for each codec whether it is lossy or lossless? And how should this be achieved in a consistent manner?
I already did some work on the organization of the codecs list, hopefully making it more immediately understandable and readable. Maybe, just as I broke down the codecs to "audio" and "video", they should also be broken into levels of "lossy" and "lossless". I'll go ahead and do this, as I'm really the only person that consistently edits these pages, but if someone has a better idea: feel free to edit, of course. -- Jizzbug
The list in the Ogg codecs section should be presented as a table.-- Michael Ray
This page has good links to the codecs frequently embedded in Ogg containers but says essentially nothing about the bitstream format itself, its uses, or implications. I'm going to make a major rewrite of this in the next day or so. -- Heywood
Hello Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason,
I restored the link to user help. Here is the rationale:
Thank you for your understanding. Opus33 17:04, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
this needs more info about the concept of a "wrapper". how is the vorbis or theora or flac file contained within the ogg file? why would anyone do this in the first place? can all of these "codecs" exist outside of ogg files, like .flac files can? (i didn't know you could put flac files inside oggs until just now. you can, right? everything in the codecs section can be put inside one?) etc. - Omegatron 18:27, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
"The segments provide a way to group segments into packets", this appears to be recursive definition to me... does the second segment just mean a chunk of data ?
This article and Theora and Xiph.Org Foundation make it sound as if the technologies where developed as the Ogg Project. Is that true? -- Hhielscher 01:34, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yes I followed the link and I'm not much wiser. What is needed is an eplanation as to what ogg codecs actually do and why you might need one. Is a codecs what you need if you want to transfer the tracks from your CDs to ogg format? Is kaudiocreator a front end for an ogg codecs? It seems to me that if you know enougth about ogg to understand this article you don't need to read it. Dejvid 15:46, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
If a concept is new then it is much easier to understand in a specific context. What I was trying to say is that what is needed is an explanation of what a codecs is in relation to ogg files. I'm begining to grasp that what I really need to understand is vorbis. Vorbis is mentioned on the page but only as a codecs and of course at the top to say that some people wrongly call vorbis ogg, ( but nothing to help the reader to realize should they have been under that misconception). What I have on my hard disk is files with .ogg at the end and these are the things that produce music when I play them. Those are the things that are real to me. What is needed is something like, on this page, "The audio files with a .ogg extention on your disk are codecs like vorbis contained in a ogg container format". I say "like" because that is just my guess as to what they are and is no doubt incorrect. (Thank you for replying) Dejvid 18:03, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Container formats may well not be new but they will be new to most people coming to this page. Dejvid 17:49, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
This list doesn't belong in the article. It should be merged with hardware list at Vorbis, or the one at the Xiph wiki.
Does someone know what the rationale is for having a single MIME type for all OGG files? Isn't the purpose of MIME types to convey as much information about the type of file as possible? With Ogg being a container format, the fact that something is "application/ogg" doesn't say much. We now have Theora videos on Commons, all of which have the same MIME type as the Vorbis sound files. How am I meant to tell Firefox to use mplayer for the Theora videos, and XMMS for the sounds, especially as all have the same extension as well?-- Eloquence * 03:24, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Along the same lines, why is application/ogg
the only registered MIME type for Ogg data? The audio/ogg
media type hasn't been
registered with
IANA for
Vorbis or
Speex or any other Ogg audio. Nor has video/ogg
been [
registered] for
Theora or any other Ogg video.
Brianary (
talk)
14:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
The article says, "At its inception, the Ogg project was thought to be somewhat ambitious given the power of the PC hardware of the time" without actually saying when the project began, making the statement highly ambiguous. Theshibboleth 11:56, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
I reckon it lacks many things, like when did development start, among others. If there's an editor with good knowledge on this issue, please improve that section. -- Saoshyant 15:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
On Wikipedia, this stupid file is everywhere. If I want to play a sound, its in .ogg! Try a more conventional file, ok? Like .avi .mid or anything normal. My computer doesn't read this file. - 71.224.24.99 19:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
HAHAHAHAH! 5 hours later and I figured out how to upload the file in OGG formate. Just check the image link aforementioned for more information. Wikipedia truly sucks when it comes to being able to upload stuff! Truly... -- CyclePat ( talk) 03:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC) There is no good reason NOT to use ogg when given the chance. Technically, mp3 is already outdated by the AAC format. Ogg generally stores files in better quality then mp3, and uses less space. It is available to everyone, as is built into most audio player, such as Winamp. Coolgamer ( talk) 22:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I would like to point out that it is not available to anyone. You must realize that many, and by many I mean most, corporations use Windows software and do not allow employees to install additional software without approval. Many schools operate under similar rules, and doing so violates the Terms of Usage for many students. So by only using .ogg as the only sound file for Wikipedia, your discriminating against a large number of potential users. Im not saying dump ogg. but maybe what wikipedia needs is a built in audio player that does not require a user to download or install software. The stated institutions are extremely concerned about the saftey of their networks. Also, its seems Wikipedia is in effect supporting Vorbis. Shouldnt an encyclopedia be neutral to all formats, propietary or not? A truely "free" encyclopeida should be usable without having to download software, free or not. "And anyone can play Ogg Vorbis files — even if it doesn't work "out of the box" on their operating systems, they can easily install software that can handle the format. " The bottom line is, no they all can't. Xcalibur27 ( talk) 18:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Xcalibur27 is correct, Ogg is not usable by people in corporations and schools in the USA, due to it not being in general distribution on the major platforms. There is no 'choice' in that matter, but it really makes no difference, because schools and corporations do not use Wikipedia. By its nature Wikipedia is not a reliable reference source, and as such is not validated by those organizations for any credible citations, so those in the aforementioned institutions will not miss hearing ogg sound bytes. Thus it is left to the 'at home user' to equip their home computer with ogg capability, as that user is the only one who might care to hear the ogg sound bytes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.135.154.254 ( talk) 08:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
J.M. On a Windows XP SP2 PC, from the front page today on japanese cicada's "Sorry, your system does not appear to have any supported player software. Please download a player." So no, it is not on all Windows PC's. And while "There is no 'choice' in that matter, but it really makes no difference, because schools and corporations do not use Wikipedia. By its nature Wikipedia is not a reliable reference source, and as such is not validated by those organizations for any credible citations, so those in the aforementioned institutions will not miss hearing ogg sound bytes" has some credible points, i.e. no wikipeida is not a reliable source. I have heard quite the opposite for elementary and middle school teachers, and even some high school teachers. All of whom dont require the stricter codes that universities or professionals use. So it does matter to them. I realize I am fighting an uphill battle, and am in a huge minority, but if no one ever stood up for the "little guy" nothing would ever change. Now, J.M., your telling me, little Sally, who is in 6th grade, who dosent have a computer at home, who has to use either the computer at the library or at school, has a choice, because they dont allow her to install the needed software? Its not her choice she does not own a computer. It is not her choice that those are her only two options. I am sorry but it seems to me that the spriit of wikipeida is to provide a free online encyclopedia, whom anyone can use to find information on (accuracy is irrelavant), and who can also add their knoweldge too. This would mean that anyone, who can get on any computer, should be able to type in wikipedia.org, and be able to fully access everything. Regardless if they have a system admisistrator who wont allow for the installation of a 3rd party program. As long as they have internet and a browser, than they should be able to fully access this site. Maybe I am wrong, and all of wikipedia shouldnt be available to everyone.
Xcalibur27 (
talk)
17:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I thought I saw a pronounciation of "Ogg" on this article before. It should be included again if it was removed or added if it was never there. -- 70.111.218.254 14:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
http://records.tastytronic.net/ogg.html
Hi. According to a WIRED article, many companies do not use OGG because of the possibility of parts of it being covered by other patents. Any info's on that? -- Chris 73 | Talk 11:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
is "patent-free" appropriate language
Anon 15:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
A crucial piece of information omitted from this article is where the information about the individual data streams is stored. How does a program reading an OGG file know that, e.g., it contains a single channel of linear PCM audio data or two channels of Ogg Vorbis compressed audio data, or whatever? Bill 20:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Could someone write a sentence or two on Xiphs harebrained decision to have one common file extension for all possible contents of Oggs (unlike e.g. m4a, mp4, m4v etc.) I can't write it myself, because, well, it probably wouldn't quite meet Wikipedia NPOV standards:
I don't want to open movies in winamp. I just d/led a video clip from another wikipedia entry and had to rename it (to ogm; they may not strictly be the same but close enough, and Tobias Whatshisname at least doesn't hate his users, unlike Xiph and Wikimedia), a completely unnecessary step and sure to confuse average users who have no fucking clue what a container format is, nor an interest in finding out (and rightfully so).
I really don't see why you should need hacks/helper applications or other overengineered ways to distinguish audio from video files when Windows provides a perfectly fine way of doing so, just because some idiots look at the code ("it's the same kind of file *whinewhine*") instead of the function ("no it isn't fucktards, the one is an audio file, the other a video file"). Thx 82.135.85.226 19:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
There is a draft of a Xiph recommendation to make more extensions (all but FLAC are 3-letter…). I myself am using extensions like “.theora.ogg“, “.theora+vorbis.ogg”, etc. for now. If this requires an article, there was one somewhere (don't remember - probably Slashdot or linux.org.ru). - AVRS 16:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Some software such as Handbrake are already utelizing .ogm for video.
Can someone please clean up my new metadata section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.202.179.68 ( talk) 14:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
The Metadata section seems to be totally out of date as is suggested in the section itself. I skimmed through the metadata wiki
page, it suggests that
M3F (Mulitmedia Metadata Format) is for the Ogg Container which aims to provide metadata for media streams(
relevant link)
I am not really sure how to revise/re-structure the section according to the present reality. It did be nice if someone takes up the job of re-constructing the section, I am ready to help.
R.Siddharth ( talk) 14:10, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
It might be an issue with the used infobox that logo is not displayed, so I added it as "icon". However, somebody with more knowledge about formating may try to fix the "infobox file format"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antonski ( talk • contribs) 14:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm trying to use wikitionary.org. I can lookup words, but when I click on the little speaker icon, an .ogg file downloads instead of playing a sound.
Do I need to install a plugin in my FireFox 3.0?
The word "mom" in wiktionary.org]
Kaydell ( talk) 04:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
It's been quite a while since I've used VB, but I do remember calling functions and subroutines from DLLs... I don't see why VB programmers would have to wait for an OCX to be released. Furthermore, I don't see how that entire section is even relevant. It's discussing a supposed limitation of Visual Basic that really has nothing to do with OGG. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.169.74.237 ( talk) 14:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I would tend to agree with the above regarding VB. It most likely refers to VB6, which does indeed have the ability to call DLLs or incorporate OCX controls. There are conceivable technical reasons why an OCX might be preferable to a DLL interface for VB6, I guess. However, VB6 is obsolescent and these days "Visual Basic" is just as likely to refer to VB.NET, a much more capable and complex product which has virtually all the functionality of C#. I'd agree that the VB6 paragraph is irrelevant in the context of this article. Rob Burbidge ( talk) 14:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I have added the Update template to the History section as it needs to be rewritten to reflect RFC 5334, published in September 2008. - Paul1337 ( talk) 14:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't know enough about this area, but should the phrase 'non copylefted' not actually read either 'copylefted' or 'non copyrighted'? I'd suggest avoiding the term copylefted, because I don't think it is widely enough known (amoung non-wikipedia editors of course!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thelem ( talk • contribs) 00:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, this statement doesn't make any sense. Doesn't 'non-copylefted = copyright?' Switchbladesista ( talk) 21:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I would like to learn more about the debate to include ogg in the HTML5 standard. There is a whole article here Ogg_controversy, but there should be a little in this article or at least a link, methinks. I'm not too computer literate, and don't feel comfortable making those changes myself.-- Lightenoughtotravel ( talk) 16:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Wish the article would speak to editing OGG files. Is OGG the 'purest' 'open' format for video? If not, then perhaps such could be added as related link? I realize that OGG is a container, but it is also listed on this wiki as _the_ preferred format for uploading video, so hopefully this question isn't too out of place on this discussion page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.217.148.21 ( talk) 04:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I removed a new section "Tools" added by user PaulBreadly, because it was not appropriate. User PaulBreadly added his section "Tools" with some shareware software and this contribution looks like an advertising. This user added the same software to several other articles (such as MPEG, AVI, 3GP, QuickTime and others) - see PaulBreadly's contributions. I think, there are also other free software converters and editors, not only shareware (see also Vorbis, Theora). I also think, there are other appropriate articles on Wikipedia about audio and video software - e.g. List of video editing software, Comparison of video editing software, Comparison of video encoders. -- 89.173.65.226 ( talk) 08:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
This article really seems biased, and doesn't even mention the fact that ogg has serious issues. It seems half of this talk page is about trying to convince people to use the format (wikipedia is not a political movement). The fact that something is patent free doesn't make it good.
From the table of contents from mp3:
There's a lot of negativity. There's not even a criticisms section in this article, and there are a lot of criticisms of this format.
--wbFrontier —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.173.105.170 ( talk) 22:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't dirac be added as a video format ? There is a spec for dirac in ogg, and it is supported by some players, e.g. vlc. I am going to go ahead and add it. If anybody disagrees they can remove it. Salsa man ( talk) 13:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
why isn't mogg mentioned (multitrack ogg, which I've seen used by pirates for rips of songs off rockband and such) I'm sure on the technical side it's just an audio file with more than 2 channels (one for each instrument) but I still think it should be mentioned — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.68.131.138 ( talk) 06:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
what is needed is a way of users to be able to download Ogg files in MP3 format. Not everyone wants to install drivers for this obscure format no one uses apart from Wikipedia. 87.112.127.60 ( talk) 22:59, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Upload?_e_pi_=7%2CPAGE_ID10%2C8624195026 Zinou Lizou ( talk) 22:18, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 5 external links on
Ogg. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 06:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ogg. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 20:47, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Ogg is a default format for alarms, notifications, ringtones and UI sounds in the Android OS phones, at least from Google, Samsung and LG. This format is supported in all Android versions. Should it be mentioned in the article? Yaroslav -- 109.252.109.131 ( talk) 15:55, 31 March 2017 (UTC)