From: "Randy H" 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0029_01C2B96B.8B0CDB30
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

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_0029_01C2B96B.8B0CDB30
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








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 the=20
      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. =

         
        

          "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 rate=20
          option.  If you don't then size isn't as important to you =
as=20
          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 =
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=20
              are the exact sizes you found when you compared equivalent =
quality=20
              WMA, MP3, and ogg?  I've seen random claims on sites =
like=20
              slashdot that usually fall back on religion not =
reality.  Can=20
              you do 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. =20
                Why would you beso foolish as to rip albums to ogg?=20
                "Because I
find:A) The ripped files =
sound better=20
                when played through my HiFiB) The files are smaller =
for a=20
                given quality.Both of the above factors are =
important to=20
               
me.Adam"Rich"
<{at}> wrote in =
message=20
                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?  I=20
                can see why people choose MP3 andWMA but ripping to =
ogg=20
                makes no sense.  Please be clear and avoid=20
                propagandaand your typical =
drivel.Rich"Adam=20
                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 a=20
                go but about 1/2 my albums are now ripped to=20
                =
ogg.Adam

------=_NextPart_000_0029_01C2B96B.8B0CDB30--

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