> Yes, Roel was abit rash, but more than just a little justified imho. Don't
> deny that quite a few of you were overpraising Vorbis long before it
actually
> was much to praise .. sure, it's a format with much potential, but it
hasn't
> reached much of that potential yet, and stating that it's an "mp3-killer"
> already is way exagerated.
I think that there are 2 things that need to be separate in our minds (at
least it's my personnal opinion). To my mind the Vorbis format and the
current Vorbis encoder core are 2 different things
I think that there is on one side the vorbis specs, and on the other side
the current vorbis encoding core.
According to the specs (although it seems to me that there is a lack of
documentation about it), vorbis has a lot more potential than mp3.
But there could be a lot of different encoders using vorbis, with different
strategies. Until now, we only have one, and this one is in beta stage. But
the specifications are not in beta, they are finalized.
But if you are a company working with music, developping a vorbis encoder is
a not very good financial thing. It probably costs a lot less to pay the
15000$ each year to FhG or to wait for another company to developp a free
vorbis encoder (in our case Icast) than paying some people to developp
another good one.
I think that vorbis is far from it's potential quality because there is only
1 full time developper and a lot of things to implement. Brandeburg wasn't
the only full time man working in the natural audio division of FhG,
Johnston wasn't the only full time man working in the natural audio
division of AT&T. Monty is the only full time developper of vorbis, and he's
a simple human, unable to work 72h each day. That's why I think that vorbis
encoder will take a lot of time before reaching the full potential of
vorbis, or beeing close to it.
Regards,
--
Gabriel Bouvigne - France
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
icq: 12138873
MP3' Tech: www.mp3-tech.org
--
MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
