From: "Randy H" 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0067_01C2B813.B7F7B970
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

What objective attributes define 'decent quality'?
=20
  "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_0067_01C2B813.B7F7B970
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








What objective attributes define 'decent=20
quality'?
 

  "Rich" <{at}> wrote in message news:3e1dba9e{at}w3.nls.net...
     Better
than what?  =
Smaller than=20
  what?
   
     If you
want better, the =
original CD=20
  would be best followed by WAV files and WMA Lossless.  If you =
want small,=20
  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 =
fall=20
  back on religion not reality.  Can you do better or is this just =
another=20
  example of random noise from you.
   
  Rich
   
  
    "Adam Flinton" <adam{at}NOSPAMsoftfab.com>">mailto:adam{at}NOSPAMsoftfab.com">adam{at}NOSPAMsoftfab.com>
= wrote in=20
    message news:3e1dafed{at}w3.nls.net..."
= Since=20
    you brought it up twice now I'll ask you about it.  Why would =
you=20
    beso foolish as to rip albums to ogg?
"Because I =
find:A)=20
    The ripped files sound better when played through my HiFiB) The =
files=20
    are smaller for a given quality.Both of the above factors =
are=20
    important to
me.Adam"Rich"
<{at}> wrote =
in=20
    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>">mailto:adam{at}NOSPAMsoftfab.com">adam{at}NOSPAMsoftfab.com>
= wrote in=20
    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 ogg=20
    (given ogg is free) as I wouldlike to give it a go but about 1/2 =
my=20
    albums are now ripped to=20
ogg.Adam

------=_NextPart_000_0067_01C2B813.B7F7B970--

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