Hello Monty,
(first, I did not know you were the developer, nor did I know you did
almost all the work on this)
Thursday, September 14, 2000, 9:05:13 PM, you wrote:
>> The best thing so far about Ogg Vorbis has been the marketing.
M> That's at best inflammatory, Roel. Why not just start off your next mail with
M> a few comments about my mother? :-P
my apologies, is a harsh in retrospect. should have thought a few
moments instead making this statement. cause was my own frustration
being let down by OV. I sometimes have the idea everyone looses their
head with this format, mainly because of the hype, but indeed this
remark was not called for, non founded.
>> I tested one file with the new b2, and even with -m6, the best possible
>> Vorbis setting, resulting in a 350kbit/s file it sounds poor.
M> Then that's a bug. You're still going to be able to find problem samples
M> (and how many samples does it have no problem with at all? The vast majority)
it's unlucky that this was the first sample I tried on it. it is one
of the hardest I have, but if I test an encoder and it has audible
artifacts on this, I automatically disregard it as "archive quality".
I never said that there is no quality difference between b1 and b2,
but I find OV not good enough yet. I'm convinced it will be
eventually.
M> Last time you gave us the problem samples, and we fixed it. We'll do the same
M> thing this time.
correct
M> Isn't that the whole bloody point of a beta release?
I agree. My main concern with OV is that it has the reputation of
being a finished good product. Beta1 was far from, and you probably
fixed a lot since. Beta2 fumbled up on the first track I tried, so
probably I did not give it a fair go.
>> There are obvious low-frequency bass distortions, which mp3 at
>> 256kbit/s bitrate doesn't show.
M> Right, bug, checking it out. Most likely, it's the +/- 1.5 dB resolution in
M> the current codebooks.
If you think I can help with something, I'd be glad to help out.
I offer myself as a testslave for the next week, as a matter of
compensation for the harsh critique.
>> Maybe they should have developed their product for 1-2 years before
>> setting up a website and featuring artists.
M> Ahem. I've been working on this for seven years.
sorry, is just my opinion. the music encoded with beta one whas
of such quality I would never use it myself.
M> Seven full time years, on my
M> own, after the duties at my day jobs were finished. I've got the good fortune
M> to be funded now, so this *is* the day job. These past six months of funding
M> are all you're apparently aware of. Now if you could bother checking some of
M> your rant against reality before insulting my dedication, I'll consider not
M> stuffing you onto my shit list for all of eternity. There was an Ogg Vorbis
M> *long* before there was a LAME.
>> (*) One of their main developers stating "the ogg encoder available as of
>> today (beta 2), does sound better then current Lame." does their cause
>> not much good.
M> I stand by what I said.
it's just: we disagree on this
M> I'm an audio asshole
who isn't here... :)
>> Believing OV, once mainstream, will not be slapped and crippled by lawsuits from
>> conventional music and distribution industry because it uses no
>> obvious patented material is plain out naive. There goes the biggest
>> advantage of this format.
M> "Bah". Diatribes are not productive.
"?"
--
Best regards,
Roel mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
