From: "Randy H" 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_000D_01C2B845.821602D0
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

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_000D_01C2B845.821602D0
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








Since I have not used the Ogg codec's I cannot make =
a value=20
judgement one way or another as to its
quality.
 
By your pejorative comment I take it you have tried =
the Ogg=20
codes and found them inadequate. What objective=20
deficencies did you find?   

  "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=20
  the way.  This is why I started this thread with the question of =
why any=20
  rational person would choose to rip to ogg not a question of whether =
someone=20
  could arrive at a set of requirements which ogg just happened to=20
  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 then=20
    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 I asked=20
      Adam to provide the information on exactly what he=20
      compared.
       
         Low
quality is =
easy.  If=20
      you want the smallest size for any format, pick the lowest bit =
rate=20
      option.  If you don't then size isn't as important to you as =
other=20
      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 =
what? =20
          Smaller than what?
           
            
If you want =
better, the=20
          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, what are=20
          the exact sizes you found when you compared equivalent quality =
WMA,=20
          MP3, and ogg?  I've seen random claims on sites like =
slashdot=20
          that usually fall back on religion not reality.  Can you =
do=20
          better or is this just another example of random noise from=20
          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=20
            would you beso foolish as to rip albums to ogg? =
"Because=20
            I find:A) The ripped files sound better when played =
through=20
            my HiFiB) The files are smaller for a given =
quality.Both=20
            of the above factors are important to=20
           
me.Adam"Rich"
<{at}> wrote in =
message news:3e1d9f52{at}w3.nls.net...&nbs=
p; =20
            Since you brought it up twice now I'll ask you about =
it.  Why=20
            would yoube so foolish as to rip albums to ogg?  I =
can see=20
            why people choose MP3 andWMA but ripping to ogg makes no =

            sense.  Please be clear and avoid propagandaand =
your=20
            typical
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 =

            missingsomething?It would be
tedious if it =
doesn't=20
            support ogg (given ogg is free) as I wouldlike to give =
it a go=20
            but about 1/2 my albums are now ripped to=20
          =
ogg.Adam

------=_NextPart_000_000D_01C2B845.821602D0--

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