From: "Rich" 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0056_01C2B967.A4EE5CD0
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

  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_0056_01C2B967.A4EE5CD0
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








  Correct. 
Did you see =
anything from me=20
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 the=20
  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 the=20
      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=20
        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 a=20
        question of whether someone could arrive at a set of =
requirements which=20
        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.=20
          
           
          

            "Rich" <{at}> wrote in message news:3e1e2682{at}w3.nls.net...
               None.  =
That is why I=20
            asked Adam to provide the information on exactly =
what he=20
            compared.
             
               Low quality is =
easy. =20
            If you want the smallest size for any format, pick the =
lowest bit=20
            rate option.  If you don't then size isn't as important =
to you=20
            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 =
equivalent=20
                quality WMA, MP3, and ogg?  I've seen random claims =
on=20
                sites like slashdot that usually fall back on religion =
not=20
                reality.  Can you do better or is this just another =
example=20
                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. =20
                  Why would you beso foolish as to rip albums to =
ogg?=20
                  "Because I
find:A) The ripped files =
sound=20
                  better when played through my HiFiB) The files are =
smaller=20
                  for a given quality.Both of the above factors =
are=20
                  important to
me.Adam"Rich"
=
<{at}>=20
                  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. =20
                  Why would yoube so foolish as to rip albums to =
ogg? =20
                  I can see why people choose MP3 andWMA but ripping =
to ogg=20
                  makes no sense.  Please be clear and avoid=20
                  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 =
doesn't=20
                  support ogg (given ogg is free) as I wouldlike to =
give it=20
                  a go but about 1/2 my albums are now ripped to=20
                  =
ogg.Adam

------=_NextPart_000_0056_01C2B967.A4EE5CD0--

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