[plug] Prefered Music Format

[Brad Campbell]

hooker at iinet.net.au wrote:
> Quoting Brad Campbell <brad at wasp.net.au>:
> 
> 
>>Senectus . wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 22:53:39 +0800, Leon Brooks <leon at brooks.fdns.net>
>>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>>On Saturday 27 November 2004 17:23, Timothy White wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I converted a CD worth of MP3's to OGG and discovered that
>>>>>every single song increased in size (20-30% increase)
>>>>
>>>>Re-rip them or convert from the WAVs/CDDAs if you have them.
>>>>
>>>>Ogg will generally come out smaller for the same settings, and
>>>>re-ripping them will retain top quality as well as shrinking them,
>>>>where converting between lossy formats buys you the worst of both
>>>>worlds (worst quality, worst compression).
>>>>
>>>
>>>I concur.. 
>>>I use mostly ogg format (ripped directly from CD), I can use a higher
>>>bit rate and get a better quality sound and STILL have my files
>>>smaller than MP3...
>>
>>
>>How is that possible? "I can use a higher bit rate ... and STILL have my
>>files smaller.."?
>>
>>The file size is entirely dependant on the bit rate! No matter what the
>>encoding, 3 minutes of 
>>160kbps is still 3 minutes of 160kbps.
> 
> 
> The space required depends on the codec more than the sample rate. OGG manages 
> to compress better than MP3.

I said nothing at all about the sample rate. 160kbps means 20480 bytes per second. Does not matter 
if it's ogg or mp3, a 160kbps song is going to produce the same filesize. Now, ogg may "sound" 
better than mp3 at the same bitrate, but it has nothing to do with the physical storage required.


-- 
Brad
                    /"\
Save the Forests   \ /     ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN
Burn a Greenie.     X      AGAINST HTML MAIL
                    / \