Hi Folks, Steve,
On Fri, 24 May 2002 09:17:33 -0400 (EDT), Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Why would anyone encode a recording to MP3 instead
>> > of ogg?
>> Because not everyone has an OGG player,
> Not everyone has an MP3 player either. ;-)
er ... yes, there is that. :)
But I think there are more MP3 players than OGG players to choose from.
> The one time I did side-by-side comparisons between
> a wav file encoded to both MP3 and ogg, the ogg format
> came out the winner.
Izzat so ? And there I was thinking that it was the other way
round. I will have to do some trials. :)
> Encode the wav file to achieve equal file sizes in ogg
> and MP3, and the ogg file sounds better. I suppose I should
> qualify that to say that the ogg sounds more "analog."
> Anyway... that's how it worked on the TWO *wav files I
> experimented with. Obviously, not enough to draw any
> general conclusions, especially since both recordings were
> so similar... both containing a guitar and a voice.
That still sounds like an experiment worth following up. Even if
just for my own music.
> On top of the practical reasons though, is the fact
> that MP3 is proprietary while ogg is open.
On principle, this is the way I feel. But when trying to reach as
wide an audience as possible, I will continue to offer MP3s of my music
for download (as an enhancement to my MIDI site).
> I *believe*
> that by making an MP3 recording (without paying the
> licensing fee), you are infringing on the MP3 patent.
Yep, that's probably so.
> With ogg, you don't even have to give such nonsense
> a second thought.
Well, I didn't with MP3, either.
It seems I am a casual criminal. :)
Regards, piratically,
Ron
Ron Clarke
http://homepages.valylink.net.au/~ausreg/index.html
http://tadpole.aus.as
-- This mail was written by user of Arachne, the Versatile Internet Client
