From: "Randy H" 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0076_01C2B97B.D7863CD0
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Nope.
  "Rich"  wrote in message news:3e2073b7{at}w3.nls.net...
    Correct.  Did you see anything from me that suggests otherwise?

  Rich

    "Randy H"  wrote in message =
news:3e205e1a{at}w3.nls.net...
    So your objecttion to ogg isn't based on experience with the codec, =
correct?
      =20
      "Rich"  wrote in message news:3e1e7602{at}w3.nls.net...
         This has nothing to do with quality.  It has to do with it =
bring a fringe format with little support.

      Rich

        "Randy H"  wrote in message =
news:3e1e70be{at}w3.nls.net...
        Since I have not used the Ogg codec's I cannot make a value =
judgement one way or another as to its
        quality.

        By your pejorative comment I take it you have tried the Ogg =
codes and found them inadequate. What objective deficencies did you = find?  =20
          "Rich"  wrote in message news:3e1e6b64{at}w3.nls.net...
             I disagree unless no widely supported type like MP3 meets =
his requirements.  Unstated requirements by the way.  This is why I =
started this thread with the question of why any rational person would =
choose to rip to ogg not a question of whether someone could arrive at a =
set of requirements which ogg just happened to satisfy.

          Rich

            "Randy H"  wrote
in message =
news:3e1e393e{at}w3.nls.net...
            If Ogg meets Adam's quality requirements then anything you =
(or I, or anyone else) offer to prove
            otherwise is meaningless and irrelevant.=20

              "Rich"  wrote in message news:3e1e2682{at}w3.nls.net...
                 None.  That is why I asked Adam to provide the =
information on exactly what he compared.

                 Low quality is easy.  If you want the smallest size for =
any format, pick the lowest bit rate option.  If you don't then size =
isn't as important to you as other factors.

              Rich

                "Randy H" 
wrote in message =
news:3e1e1d32{at}w3.nls.net...
                What objective attributes define 'decent quality'?

                  "Rich"  wrote in message =
news:3e1dba9e{at}w3.nls.net...
                     Better than what?  Smaller than what?

                     If you want better, the original CD would be best =
followed by WAV files and WMA Lossless.  If you want small, low quality =
anything will do.

                     For decent quality, what are the exact sizes you =
found when you compared equivalent quality WMA, MP3, and ogg?  I've seen =
random claims on sites like slashdot that usually fall back on religion =
not reality.  Can you do better or is this just another example of = random
noise from you.

                  Rich

                    "Adam Flinton" 
wrote in =
message news:3e1dafed{at}w3.nls.net...
                    " Since you brought it up twice now I'll ask you =
about it.  Why would you be
                    so foolish as to rip albums to ogg? "

                    Because I find:

                    A) The ripped files sound better when played through =
my HiFi
                    B) The files are smaller for a given quality.

                    Both of the above factors are important to me.

                    Adam



                    "Rich"  wrote in message =
news:3e1d9f52{at}w3.nls.net...
                       Since you brought it up twice now I'll ask you =
about it.  Why would you
                    be so foolish as to rip albums to ogg?  I can see =
why people choose MP3 and
                    WMA but ripping to ogg makes no sense.  Please be =
clear and avoid propaganda
                    and your typical drivel.

                    Rich

                    "Adam Flinton" 
wrote in =
message
                    news:3e1d4d1e$1{at}w3.nls.net...
                    I can't find anything about ogg....is it not =
supported or am I missing
                    something?

                    It would be tedious if it doesn't support ogg (given =
ogg is free) as I would
                    like to give it a go but about 1/2 my albums are now =
ripped to ogg.

                    Adam


------=_NextPart_000_0076_01C2B97B.D7863CD0
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








Nope.

  "Rich" <{at}> wrote in message news:3e2073b7{at}w3.nls.net...
   
Correct.  Did you see =
anything from=20
  me that suggests otherwise?
   
  Rich
   
  

    "Randy H" <randy_holcomb{at}attglobal.netmailto:randy_holcomb{at}attglobal.net">randy_holcomb{at}attglobal.net
A>>=20
    wrote in message news:3e205e1a{at}w3.nls.net...
    So your objecttion to ogg isn't based on =
experience with=20
    the codec, correct?
       
    

      "Rich" <{at}> wrote in message news:3e1e7602{at}w3.nls.net...
        
This has nothing to =
do with=20
      quality.  It has to do with it bring a fringe format with =
little=20
      support.
       
      Rich
       
      

        "Randy H" <randy_holcomb{at}attglobal.netmailto:randy_holcomb{at}attglobal.net">randy_holcomb{at}attglobal.net
A>>=20
        wrote in message news:3e1e70be{at}w3.nls.net...
        Since I have not used the Ogg codec's I =
cannot make a=20
        value judgement one way or another as to its
        quality.
         
        By your pejorative comment I take it you =
have tried=20
        the Ogg codes and found them inadequate. What objective deficencies did you find?=20
          
        

          "Rich" <{at}> wrote in message news:3e1e6b64{at}w3.nls.net...
            
I disagree =
unless no widely=20
          supported type like MP3 meets his requirements.  Unstated =

          requirements by the way.  This is why I started this =
thread with=20
          the question of why any rational person would choose to rip to =
ogg not=20
          a question of whether someone could arrive at a set of =
requirements=20
          which ogg just happened to satisfy.
           
          Rich
           
          

            "Randy H" <randy_holcomb{at}attglobal.netmailto:randy_holcomb{at}attglobal.net">randy_holcomb{at}attglobal.net
A>>=20
            wrote in message news:3e1e393e{at}w3.nls.net...
            If Ogg meets Adam's =
quality requirements=20
            then anything you (or I, or anyone else) offer to =
prove
            otherwise is meaningless and
irrelevant. =

            
             
            

              "Rich" <{at}> wrote in message news:3e1e2682{at}w3.nls.net...
                 None.  =
That is why=20
              I asked Adam to provide the information on exactly =
what he=20
              compared.
               
                 Low quality =
is=20
              easy.  If you want the smallest size for any format, =
pick the=20
              lowest bit rate option.  If you don't then size isn't =
as=20
              important to you as other factors.
               
              Rich
               
              

                "Randy H" <randy_holcomb{at}attglobal.netmailto:randy_holcomb{at}attglobal.net">randy_holcomb{at}attglobal.net
A>>=20
                wrote in message news:3e1e1d32{at}w3.nls.net...
                What objective attributes =
define 'decent=20
                quality'?
                 
                

                  "Rich" <{at}> wrote in
message news:3e1dba9e{at}w3.nls.net...
                     Better =
than=20
                  what?  Smaller than what?
                   
                     If you =
want better,=20
                  the original CD would be best followed by WAV files =
and WMA=20
                  Lossless.  If you want small, low quality =
anything will=20
                  do.
                   
                     For =
decent quality,=20
                  what are the exact sizes you found when you compared=20
                  equivalent quality WMA, MP3, and ogg?  I've seen =
random=20
                  claims on sites like slashdot that usually fall back =
on=20
                  religion not reality.  Can you do better or is =
this just=20
                  another example of random noise from you.
                   
                  Rich
                   
                  
                    "Adam Flinton" <adam{at}NOSPAMsoftfab.com>=20">mailto:adam{at}NOSPAMsoftfab.com">adam{at}NOSPAMsoftfab.com>=20
                    wrote in message news:3e1dafed{at}w3.nls.net..."
=

                    Since you brought it up twice now I'll ask you about =

                    it.  Why would you beso foolish as to rip =
albums to=20
                    ogg? "Because I
find:A) The ripped =
files=20
                    sound better when played through my HiFiB) The =
files are=20
                    smaller for a given quality.Both of the =
above=20
                    factors are important to=20
                   
me.Adam"Rich"
<{at}> =
wrote in=20
                    message news:3e1d9f52{at}w3.nls.net...&nbs=
p; =20
                    Since you brought it up twice now I'll ask you about =

                    it.  Why would yoube so foolish as to rip =
albums to=20
                    ogg?  I can see why people choose MP3 =
andWMA but=20
                    ripping to ogg makes no sense.  Please be clear =
and=20
                    avoid propagandaand your typical=20
                   
drivel.Rich"Adam Flinton"
<adam{at}NOSPAMsoftfab.com>=20">mailto:adam{at}NOSPAMsoftfab.com">adam{at}NOSPAMsoftfab.com>=20
                    wrote in messagenews:3e1d4d1e$1{at}w3.nls.net...=
I=20
                    can't find anything about ogg....is it not supported =
or am I=20
                    missingsomething?It would
be tedious if =
it=20
                    doesn't support ogg (given ogg is free) as I =
wouldlike=20
                    to give it a go but about 1/2 my albums are now =
ripped to=20
                    =
ogg.Adam

------=_NextPart_000_0076_01C2B97B.D7863CD0--

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-4