From: "Rich" 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_014B_01C2B831.8D8B4C60
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

   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_014B_01C2B831.8D8B4C60
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








   I
disagree unless no =
widely supported=20
type like MP3 meets his requirements.  Unstated requirements by 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 you=20
    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 =
Lossless. =20
        If you want small, low quality anything will do.
         
          
For decent =
quality, what are=20
        the exact sizes you found when you compared equivalent quality =
WMA, MP3,=20
        and ogg?  I've seen random claims on sites like slashdot =
that=20
        usually fall back on religion not reality.  Can you do =
better or is=20
        this just 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=20
          would you beso foolish as to rip albums to ogg? =
"Because I=20
          find:A) The ripped files sound better when played =
through my=20
          HiFiB) The files are smaller for a given =
quality.Both of=20
          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=20
          sense.  Please be 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=20
          1/2 my albums are now ripped to=20
      =
ogg.Adam

------=_NextPart_000_014B_01C2B831.8D8B4C60--

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