Talk:Ogg

Tutorial: How to play and/or use Ogg Vorbis files

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)

Lossy and lossless codecs

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

It should be pointed out, saying it in the opening text is a good idea. Because people generally don't know the difference and don't get that even if they don't hear a difference that there is loss of quality. (so narrow-minded) :( Thelennonorth (talk) 20:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Missing focus

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

• Ogg Squish :: I removed Ogg Squish from the list because it was never an Ogg codec. It was a project by the same author as Ogg Vorbis, but it was never in an Ogg encapsulation. However, now that I have tracked down the source, I'll be bringing it up to date so we can add it back in.. probobally 6-8 months. Not a top priority for me. Source code can be found at: http://www.mit.edu/afs/sipb/user/mwhitson/Project/Ogg/ogg9-partial.tgz 207.127.233.34 12:33, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Link to matroska? --Repabil

User help

Hello Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason,

I restored the link to user help. Here is the rationale:

• Many Wikipedia articles contain sound files. They are labeled with a link to Ogg.
• The Ogg Vorbis format continues to be obscure, and most people's computers are not set up to play these files.
• Computer-savvy people will immediately know what to do; they will find and download a player that can handle Ogg files.
• However, many Wikipedia readers are not computer-savvy. They deserve to be given help, immediately and clearly. Otherwise they will simply give up.
• This is why the Ogg article needs a link, prominently located, to the help file.

Thank you for your understanding. Opus33 17:04, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The need for a help page is inevitable, but the need for it to be linked via this page is not. There is thus a very simple way around this issue, which I seem to remember pointing out before: fix the links to point directly to the help page. A link to a Wikipedia: or Help: page next to each sound would actually be more helpful, in that it would be more direct; and if the link was added using a template, it would be a lesser breach of the avoid self-references policy.

Meanwhile, I still think Wikipedia:How to play Ogg files needs serious work, and in particular a more appropriate list of software than that provided by Vorbis.com. That's a larger issue, but again, if all the references were in one template, we could choose between the various help pages (yours, current, mine, or most likely some combination thereof) just by changing the template, and even decide at some point in the future to use something like meta:Template:Sound if it seemed desirable.

So, the point is, rather than retaining the self-reference - against general policy - we should be tracking down the references to this page and replacing them with something more appropriate. - IMSoP 19:49, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hello IMSoP,

Since we last discussed, some other editors evidently have taken up the Ogg help problem, and there now seems to be an "official" solution, with a help file posted at Wikipedia:Audio_help. I've relinked this page to that one, and when I have the time, I will remove all links to my old help file.

The people involved have also devised a template to put next to sound files, which you can see at (for example) Piano Sonata No. 14 (Beethoven).

There are still a lot of sound files whose only "how to" link is to this page, so until they all get fixed to point to Wikipedia:Audio_help instead, I'd like to leave this link in place. Also, it will be important to periodically check that any new links to Ogg that should be linking to Wikipedia:Audio_help get corrected.

I hope this strikes you as helpful, or at least well-intentioned. Yours truly, Opus33 23:10, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi Opus33, the reason I removed the link was to generally avoid self-references in the article, see Wikipedia:Avoid self-references, I say generally because that's not the only thing i changed, see the diff, I also removed the "List of .ogg files on Wikipedia" link which was completely inappropriate.

Regardless, I think the problem could be resolved of course by fixing the links you mentioned and by just adding a disambiguation notice at the top: This article is about the Ogg container format, for the audio format see Vorbis., this would immitiately direct anyone wanting to play Vorbis files to that article (which contains the help link you mentioned). —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 14:18, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC)

more info

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 ?

Has there been an Ogg Project?

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)

What is a codecs?

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)

Ogg is only a container format. Music is stored as Vorbis inside an Ogg container. Please tell us at Talk:Container format how we could improve that page.--Hhielscher 16:09, 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)

I guess the idea of container formats is not that new. If you have a ogg file that contains audio than it may contain Speex, Vorbis or FLAC (as listed in Ogg#Ogg_codecs). Athough Vorbis may be included in other containers as well, see Comparison_of_container_formats.--Hhielscher 19:55, 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)

Ogg compatible hardware players

This list doesn't belong in the article. It should be merged with hardware list at Vorbis, or the one at the Xiph wiki.

• Cowon iAudio M3 - 20gb to 40gb harddrive
• Cowon iAudio U2 - 256mb to 1gb flashdrive
• Cowon iAudio G3 - 256mb to 1gb flashdrive
• Cowon iAudio 5 - 256mb to 2gb flashdrive
• Cowon iAudio X5 - 20gb to 60gb harddrive
• Cowon iAudio M5 - 20gb harddrive
• Cowon iAudio F1 - 512mb to 2gb flashdrive
• Cowon iAudio U3 - 512mb to 2gb flashdrive
• Cowon iAudio 6 - 4gb harddrive
• iriver H100 series - 20gb to 40gb harddrive
• iriver H300 series - 20gb to 40gb harddrive
• iriver iFP-700 Series - 128mb to 1gb flashdrive
• iriver iFP-800 Series - 128mb to 1gb flashdrive
• iriver iFP-900 Series - 256mb to 1gb flashdrive
• IOPS Z5 - 512mb to 1gb flashdrive
• Mpio ONE - 256mb to 1gb flashdrive
• Mpio hd 200 - 5gb harddrive
• Mpio hd 300 - 20gb to 40gb harddrive
• Neuros jukebox - 256mb to 20gb flashdrive/harddrive
• Neuros II - 256mb to 60gb flashdrive/harddrive
• RioVolt SP250 (but you'll need to install the iriver firmware) - CD
• Rio Karma - 20gb harddrive
• Samsung YP-C1 - 256mb to 1gb flashdrive
• Samsung YP-MT6 - 256mb to 1gb flashdrive
• Samsung YP-T6 - 256mb to 1gb flashdrive
• Samsung YP-T7 - 256mb to 1gb flashdrive
• Samsung YH-J70 - 20gb to 30gb harddrive

MIME type

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)

They are in the middle of the registration process. It's taken a bit more time than it should because, half-way through said process, some people decided it would be a good idea to have the "codecs" parameter available. The discussion to get its use right is taking a bit more time. In a month or so, they will be finally registered, so please don't go overboard with your UNREGISTERED edits.

application/ogg was registered in 2003 as the Ogg media type. Several discussions last year, however, made Xiph decide to register video/ogg and audio/ogg as well. They are not only for Theora and Vorbis, though, but for all worldwisde codecs (Ogg can have anything inside). Anyway, read the RFC draft for more details.--Ivo ^{talk / contribs} (join Project Portugal) 15:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

When did it start?

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)

Could someone please add more to History of Ogg?

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)

It doesn't work

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)

Did you read the Media help (Ogg) article that's suggested at the top of this page? The page explains how to play Ogg Vorbis files. Did you actually read the article to understand why Wikipedia uses this format? I suggest you actually read the articles you're replying to before you make such ignorant comments. And BTW, the sentence "my computer doesn't read this file" is total nonsense. Your computer has nothing to do with it. — J. M. 22:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Although his or her comments might sound ignorant to you, he raises a good point that you should not so easily dismiss: .ogg is not a format that is normally familiar to the basic computer user. Perhaps this should be considered a hurdle that wikipedia should try its best to overcome--especially if users are prone to getting frustrated with it and don't know how to seek out the information on how to use the files. 100DashSix 02:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

That's why there is the help page that explains how to play the files (what more could you ask for?), and that's why there is the explanation at the top of this page. I consider it rude when someone posts a complaint "I don't know what to do with XY!" directly to a page that explains what to do with XY. They didn't even bother to read the page they're replying to. Also, Wikipedia uses the format for good reasons (almost everything else in the multimedia field is patented, proprietary and not accessible to everyone on any platform). And it is explained in the articles, too. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia and its contents are freely available to anyone. Wikipedia uses open formats. It cannot use closed, proprietary, patented formats. 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 software is freely available to anyone and installation instructions are available in the Wikipedia pages, too. So all you have to do is understand it and accept it. Or, if you understand it but still don't like it, there are closed, proprietary encyclopedias for people who prefer proprietary closed solutions. —J. M. 04:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• ".ogg is not a format that is normally familiar to the basic computer user. Perhaps this should be considered a hurdle that wikipedia should try its best to overcome". Perhaps this is a hurdle that Wikipedia users should try their best to overcome? After all, ignorance should be fought, not promoted. I'm sick and tired of having to "defend" free software/open formats/free standards from the despise of ignorant slaves of proprietary formats. If you can not play Ogg Vorbis files it is your friggin' problem, not Wikipedia's. Vorbis is free, and anyone can get a player (for free, if they so will), unlike proprietary formats like MP3. — isilanes (talk|contribs) 17:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, instructions how to play Ogg Vorbis files are included in the Wikipedia articles. So if the users ignore them and complain that they can't play the files without even reading the instructions that are written there, that's inexcusable behaviour and they have no right to complain. —J. M. 17:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• "Perhaps this is a hurdle that Wikipedia users should try their best to overcome?...If you can not play Ogg Vorbis files it is your friggin' problem." In other words, you're saying that Wikipedia should do nothing to predict who its audience might be, and has no responsibility to make it as easy as possible for its audience to access its media? I see no reason why both users and Wikipedia should not try their hardest to overcome the problem. Anyway, I do know the information exists on how to play these files, but not everyone knows how to get it, as shown by the original poster. I was just asking if there is a better way that things can be done, either in terms of audio format or in the way that the information is presented. Sorry, I didn't know that asking these sorts of questions means that I am an "ignorant slave of proprietary formats." Oh, and MP3 players are not only free, but the most popular operating systems can handle them out of the box. 100DashSix 01:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

MP3 players are free, but the most popular operating systems they run on are not. They can handle MP3 out of the box because their users paid for them, which in turn enables the operating system makers to pay MP3 licensing fees and therefore include out-of-the-box MP3 playback in their products. There are free operating systems (such as various Linux distributions) that cannot offer MP3 playback out of the box because MP3 is a non-free, patented format. This is why Wikipedia uses free formats, which are freely accessible to anyone (assuming they have a computer). Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia. If it used closed, patented formats, that that would deny its essence, everything Wikipedia is based on. So if you don't like Vorbis audio in Wikipedia, you are free to use some other, closed encyclopedia that uses closed formats. And since Wikipedia is an open encyclopedia, it means its contents are created by anyone who is interested in contributing. So if you feel some information (such as Ogg Vorbis playback instructions) is missing or not sufficient, go ahead and add it. That's the way Wikipedia works. So just take it or leave it. —J. M. 03:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I AM ^&*BAD WORD&*(*( MAD and frustrated. Can someone please help me upload a a recording I just made for the Gloria, more specifically the gregorian chant Image:Gloria 5 (init).png. Best regards. --CyclePat (talk) 01:48, 7 April 2008 (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)

Yes, it is available to anyone. The fact that some people decide not to use it does not mean it is not available to them. It only means they decided not to use it. It is their choice. They have a choice. Also, there is a difference between using patent-free (at least hopefully, you can never be sure about that) formats and patent-encumbered formats. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia (supported by a non-profit foundation and constantly in need of money to cover its operating costs) and cannot use patent-encumbered formats that require paying licensing fees. Free formats are freely available to anyone (again, the fact that not everyone decides to use them does not change it). No, a free encyclopdia cannot be neutral to all formats, priprietary or not. In fact, using free formats is neutral, because they are freely available to anyone, regardless of their platform, operating system, application software, race, religion and so on. (And you do not have to install software in Microsoft Windows to be able to play Ogg Vorbis files. There are many programs that can be run without installation.)—J. M. (talk) 19:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I would take no issue with other free license, non-proprietary formats being offered with (but not instead of) ogg vorbis. The irony in your point, though, is the idea that it's not discrimination to prohibit employees and other people's kids from using free technology, while it is to offer it exclusively. It's just backwards logic if viewed objectively.. ioeln (talk) 11:03, 18 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)

Firstly, Wikipedia is here for anyone who is interested in reading it, your personal opinion about its usefulness, reliability and target audience is just pure speculation that's irrelevant here. Secondly, yes, the choice is there. Corporations have decided not to install Ogg-capable software on their computers, and employess decided to work for them. Voluntarily. It was their free decision, their choice. They had and have a choice. Ogg-capable software is freely available to anyone and the fact that someone consciously refuses to use it does not mean they do not have the choice to use it. When I give you a hundred dollars for free and you reject the offer, it does not mean I did not offer you anything.—J. M. (talk) 01:30, 26 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)

Xcalibur27, I understand that you think to fight the right battle. The truth is that you aren't. The fact that free formats are the best way to ensure access and availability to everyone is just that: a fact. That's not because I think so, but because it's a widespread opinion from an informatics, legislative and "user rights" point of view. From an informatics point of view, using a STANDARD unencumbered by patents is the only way to guarantee that everyone will have the possibility to make a software that can read the standard without paying royalties. This maximizes the probability that every user of every software (O.S., browser, ...) will have the possibility to access the content encoded in that standard. From a legal point of view the STANDARD unencumbered by patents guarantee that none will have the possibility to destroy "undesired" software or competitors submerging them in tons of legal expenses (given enough money I can ruin you even if you're right). From a "user rights" point of view the possibility to know the structure of the information empowers the users and gives them the "right" to use several useful tools (for example screen readers for blind people). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.37.242.46 (talk) 21:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

If I follow the Wikipedia mindset on video (and audio) and to take the example of Sally the 6th grader further, in Wikipedia's ideal world, Sally likely wouldn't be able to access Wikipedia on her school's computer because it was likely purchased from a proprietary manufacturer. I'm not aware of any open source computer manufacturers at the moment, though realize if you intend to start one, Wikipedia will want certification that no proprietary components are part of it. Even if somehow Sally's school's computer passes that muster, she will not be able to turn it on if the power comes from a for-profit, proprietary energy company. Perhaps if she lives where there is a municipally-owned power company, she will be OK. But check if she took the bus to school, and if the vendor that won the contract to provide buses is proprietary. Basically, if Sally walks to school wearing hand made clothes, after eating a breakfast consistingly only of food grown in the community, on dirt roads so no proprietary asphalt mixture is used, then at school she will be able to see video/audio on wikipedia at school, which somehow has a computer lab in a society which has otherwise abandoned all advances of the past century or more due to them being 'proprietary'. I would call these ogg-pushers view dystopian, but I do not wish to offend any current or future residents of dystopias.Cander0000 (talk) 05:49, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Pronounciation

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)

Plugins?

http://records.tastytronic.net/ogg.html

Patents in OGG?

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)

You read the wired article too? - I went here to investigate. I'll make a small addendum about this. Bfg 10:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the section properly belongs to the Vorbis article, as Ogg is just the container, not the audio codec. —J. M. 16:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree and disagree, the claims are directed against Vorbis, although the consequences are suffered by the entire project. Bfg 12:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

is "patent-free" appropriate language

There was a recent article on slashdot which suggests that Nokia claims that Ogg is a proprietary format. Nokia's position paper can be found here.

Anon 15:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Nokia's position is FUD. Check the facts for yourself if you rather think with your own head instead of letting corporations with veiled interests do the thinking for you. Theora and Vorbis are patent-free, royalty-free, and "open source" formats, AKA free formats.--Ivo Emanuel Gonçalves ^{talk / contribs} (join WP:PT) 16:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

You should back up your claim with at least a single proof, otherwise there is no reason to take it seriously. Saying "it is a free format, period" lacks reasoning. There have been suspicions that there are 3rd party patents covering techniques in both Vorbis and Theora – if you claim there are facts that show it is not true, then you could certainly show us those facts instead of saying "it is not true because I say so, check the facts for yourself". —J. M. (talk) 17:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe that came out wrong. I told those interested in the subject to investigate. Actually reading Nokia's statement is a start; they don't provide any evidence of whatsoever, they make several misconceptions like that Ogg technologies aren't royalty-free and that the Ogg container cannot have DRM. Those are very wrong statements.

On the subject of Theora, its patents have been negotiated in contract between Xiph and On2 to allow royalty-free use by anyone and anything, not to mention that the Theora specification is on the public domain. It _is_ a free format. Vorbis on the other hand has no known patents: it uses only compression schemes whose patents have already expired. Vorbis is also on the public domain. Theora, Vorbis, and Ogg are backed up by important organizations like OLPC, Wikimedia Foundation, the FSF, and even companies like Mozilla. Many companies have made private patent searches in Ogg technologies only to come out and start supporting it and, while I can't add to the main article because we would have no references, why don't you contact AOL/Time Warner? The industry knows they did one of those patent searches when it came to consider supporting some of Xiph formats in Winamp.

Of course there's always a risk that there may be submarine patents as the patent system is heavily flawed. However, that risk does not exist alone for Theora, Vorbis, or Ogg, but also for all of MPEG-4, MP3, WMV/A, and others. When it comes to submarine patents, you can never be sure regarding any of those, but the Xiph formats are so far the better bet.--Ivo Emanuel Gonçalves ^{talk / contribs} (join WP:PT) 22:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly the point – you can never be sure. The fact that the contract between Xiph and On2 allows royalty-free use by anyone does not mean the format is patent-free. It simply means that any possible patents used in Theora owned by On2 are free to use. But that does not mean Theora does not use any patented methods of video compression (i.e. patents owned by 3rd parties). In fact, a developer from the MPlayer team (who is obviously quite knowledgeable about these things) once said that Theora uses basically the same techniques used in MPEG-1 and therefore basically all MPEG-1 patents apply to Theora, too. Now, I am not saying it is true (I don't really know), but unless someone proves this is not true, noone can simply say "Theora is patent-free, period". Because in the world of patents, you can never know. So yes, it is the better bet among various formats, but that's all. —J. M. (talk) 23:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

As much as the US patent system is a complete failure, especially regarding software (which is obviously copyright, and not patent, territory), there is apparently no valid patent against Vorbis (ogg being only the container, it stands as "previous art" by itself for any future attempted patent grab). Wired is an, erm "interesting" source for IT-related news, much as "news of the world" is an "interesting" source for Astrophysics. So *even* in the US, Vorbis should be safe (and that's saying something). In any country where the patent system rely on actual innovation (i.e. earth, bar the USA), Vorbis and its ogg container are fully free (as in Ti Punch) and free (as in "open source"). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.21.113.123 (talk) 20:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Theora is based on VP3, which is patented. Xiph.org have permission to use those patents and distribute Theora royalty-free. If there were valid EARLIER patents for the same technologies as VP3, then the USPTO should NOT have issued the VP3 patents to On2. If there are LATER patents for the same technologies as VP3, then the patents on VP3 trump the later ones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.20.20.129 (talk) 01:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Identification of data formats

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)

File Extension

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)

It's probably cheaper for you to get a Wikipedia user name than it is for you to buy a real OS, but I'd recommend both. Chris Cunningham 19:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Please be so kind to explain in plain English what you desire. You're right about one thing, you are not NPOV, nevertheless adjectives like "fucking" and "harebrained" don't make me or anybody for that matter especially inclined to meet your request. BTW, the word "fucktards" is new to me, I get it's a negative one, but I honestly don't understand it. Please make a request in a civil manner and I promise you I'll consider it. Bfg 15:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

While the original poster of this section was rather rude and agressive (btw fucktards can be taken to be roughly synonomous to retards but with the more agressive tone that swearing adds) he is indeed bringing up one of the most common criticisms of ogg that i see which is that basing the file extention on the container format is a bad idea. File extentions while imperfect (the biggest issue is that they are generally very short due to a convention that dates back to the 8.3 days meaning that conflicts are very common) are the closest thing most systems have to filetype metadata and from the users perspective an audio file and a video file are very different things. Yes its possible to grab filetype info from the file itself but the dominant OS has little if any support for doing so (you'd probablly need a custom shell extention) and it is comparatively slow to read every file. As for wikimedia they are stuck between a rock and a hard place on this one. If they use the ogg extention they will make life difficult for those who want audio and video treated differently. If they use ogm then they won't play on systems that don't support tobais's nonstandard extentions. 130.88.116.93 13:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC) Plugwash 13:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, this thing just really gets me going, and I think rightfully so. If you're on a system that identifies files by magic numbers or something then why use an extension at all?

If on the other hand you don't want to leave 90% of your audience out in the rain and use an extension anyway, you could show poor Windows users some love.

The current Xiph system of calling everything .ogg, does

Windows users are not poor. How could they be when they can afford a £68.98 operating system! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.202.179.68 (talk) 14:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

(a) take the de facto standard and subtly subvert it to make it incompatible with the predominant implementation. Microsoft does stuff like this, too; but they do it to crush the competition and to herald the reign of Satan, while I'm not quite sure what Xiph intends to achieve.

(b) make it harder for the user, not just on Windows. It makes it difficult to sort and move large numbers of files in a unix shell, because you effectively have to decide for each file by hand what's in it (even if they use the .theora.ogg etc versions below, you'd have to write a script that differentiates all possible combinations of theora, vorbis and ogg, and that's in the best case scenario that everyone actually uses these extensions)

(c) offer absolutely no advantage at all AFAIK.

On the ogm problem: They wouldn't have to actually use Tobias' implementation. The important thing is that .ogm would be associated with a video player and therefore play the ogg correctly (as neither dshow nor vlc or mplayer/xine etc. look at the extension when creating the filter-chain but parse the file itself) if the user has the necessary filter. How about .ogv? Is that used by something important? Or .oggvideo, iirc Windows supports more than 3 letters since 95/NT.

(argh, they're not the only ones who were late. Had I read the draft before writing this, it would have become a lot shorter. Apparently .ogv is the future. It's imho 5 years overdue but I know that it's sometimes hard to overturn old decisions and I congratulate them on biting the bullet. I hope it becomes official soon :)

And last but not least: I still think the decision was harebrained, the fucking wasn't part of any insult and didn't even the courts acknowledge some time ago that "fuck" lost a lot of its bite? :) I *did* call them idiots which was not nice, but posts like this one are imho borderline whining (not that my original post wouldn't qualify, too :P) and idiotic. But I'd like to take back the fucktard. 82.135.1.13 21:52, 6 July 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)

Ah, looks like it was at http://vorbis.org.ru/ (in Russian), but the site doesn't load right now - AVRS 16:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Some software such as Handbrake are already utelizing .ogm for video.

Then that Handbrake thing is misbehaving. All video on Ogg is to use .ogv from now on. .ogm is not part of any official Xiph/Ogg project — it exists to make a distinction between Ogg files with patented MPEG-4 video on them and those that don't.--Ivo Emanuel Gonçalves ^{talk / contribs} (join WP:PT) 16:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

file extensions are arguably the dullest way ever invented to identify filetype. Only one (1) OS still uses that as its main file type recognition, and you may call it XP, Vista or 7.smthg, it's still at least technically 10 years late. Its parent company, on the other hand, is good at marketting. so please, people, sod file extensions and use proper input validation instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.21.113.123 (talk) 21:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Metadata

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)

Page design

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)

How do I get words to pronounce in wiktionary.org?

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)

Nope, just upgrade to Firefox 3.5 ;) With 3.5 you can play those files without plugins in the browser. Thelennonorth (talk) 20:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Visual Basic Accuracy

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)

History section needs updating

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)

Non-copylefted

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 agree "non-copylefted" is not a precise name, however, in this context "non-copylefted" means a program not subject to the restrictions normally associated with "copyleft", in particluar, the "share-alike" or "you can't make closed-source things based on this". It is also wrong to equate "non-copyleft = copyright" as something "copylefted" is still 100% copyrighted, but simply with special clauses. Examples of non-copyleft would be Photoshop, a program under a BSD license, or a program in the public domain. --SF007 (talk) 23:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

HTML5?

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)

Editing OGG files?

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)

Removed section "Tools"

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)

Bit too much of a love in

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:

1. 10 Licensing and patent issues
2. 11 Security issues
3. 12 Alternative technologies

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.

[1]

--wbFrontier —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.173.105.170 (talk) 22:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Dirac video

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?

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)

Ogg 2 MP3

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)

External links modified

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:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for //www.xiph.org/ogg/doc/vorbis.html
• Attempted to fix sourcing for //www.xiph.org/ogg/doc/oggstream.html
• Attempted to fix sourcing for //www.xiph.org/ogg/index.html
• Attempted to fix sourcing for //www.xiph.org/ogg/index.html
• Attempted to fix sourcing for //www.xiph.org/ogg/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

WFM. All those broken original references could be updated to current working references, but the archived URLs are okay. Be..anyone (talk) 06:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.xiph.org/container/ogm.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:47, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Usage in Android

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)