28
.ogg vs .wav, whats better?
(lemmy.ml)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 14 Sep 2023
28 points (83.3% liked)
Asklemmy
43762 readers
1147 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Depends on what counts as "better".
Better quality? WAV, since it's lossless.
Better efficiency? OGG (well, Vorbis) since it compresses pretty well, but you'll still get a (minor) loss in quality.
That said, both of those formats are old news and should only be used if you have weird, specific compatibility needs. For lossy compression, OGG/Vorbis has been succeeded by Opus; it's what YouTube uses, compresses fantastically, and is supported by damn near everything. For lossless, FLAC (Free Lossless Audio Codec) is still the gold standard: you can reduce file sizes by as much as 60% with literally zero loss in quality. If you can, use one of those.