Talk:Ogg

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Lossy and lossless codecs

message: 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)
thread_title: Missing focus

message: 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)
thread_title:  Has there been an Ogg Project? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: What is a codecs?

message: 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)
thread_title:  When did it start? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Could someone please add more to History of Ogg? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: * ".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)
replies: text: 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)

text: *"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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  It doesn't work 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Pronounciation 

message: 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)
thread_title: Identification of data formats

message: 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)
thread_title: Metadata

message: 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)
thread_title:  Page design 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  How do I get words to pronounce in wiktionary.org? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Visual Basic Accuracy 

message: 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)
thread_title:  History section needs updating 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Non-copylefted 

message: 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)
thread_title:  HTML5? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Editing OGG files? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Removed section "Tools" 

message: 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:
# 10 Licensing and patent issues
# 11 Security issues
# 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. 
--wbFrontier  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.173.105.170 (talk) 22:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bit too much of a love in 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Dirac video 

message: 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)
thread_title:  why isn't mogg mentioned? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Ogg 2 MP3 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Ogg. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  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  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 ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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 ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:47, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Usage in Android