From: "Randy H" 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0022_01C2B824.6F200CA0
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

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_0022_01C2B824.6F200CA0
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








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 Adam=20
  to provide the information on exactly what he =
compared.
   
     Low quality is =
easy.  If you=20
  want the smallest size for any format, pick the lowest bit rate =
option. =20
  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?  Smaller=20
      than what?
       
         If
you want better, =
the original=20
      CD would be best followed by WAV files and WMA Lossless.  If =
you want=20
      small, low quality anything will do.
       
         For
decent quality, =
what are the=20
      exact sizes you found when you compared equivalent quality WMA, =
MP3, and=20
      ogg?  I've seen random claims on sites like slashdot that =
usually=20
      fall back on 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=20
        you beso foolish as to rip albums to ogg?
"Because I =

        find:A) The ripped files sound better when played =
through my=20
        HiFiB) The files are smaller for a given =
quality.Both of the=20
        above factors are important to =
me.Adam"Rich"=20
        <{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 would=20
        yoube so foolish as to rip albums to ogg?  I can see =
why people=20
        choose MP3 andWMA but ripping to ogg makes no sense.  =
Please be=20
        clear and 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 doesn't =
support=20
        ogg (given ogg is free) as I wouldlike to give it a go but =
about 1/2=20
        my albums are now ripped to=20
    =
ogg.Adam

------=_NextPart_000_0022_01C2B824.6F200CA0--

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