From: "Rich" 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0174_01C2B837.DD9162C0
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

   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_0174_01C2B837.DD9162C0
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








   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 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=20
    by the way.  This is why I started this thread with the =
question of why=20
    any rational person would choose to rip to ogg not a question of =
whether=20
    someone 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=20
        asked 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 =

            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.  Why=20
              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.  Why=20
              would yoube so foolish as to rip albums to ogg?  =
I can=20
              see why people choose MP3 andWMA but ripping to ogg =
makes no=20
              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=20
              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_0174_01C2B837.DD9162C0--

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