Michael B. Trausch  wrote:   
   > On 2003-11-03, m4rcone@xs4a11.nl  wrote:   
   >> Michael B. Trausch  wrote:   
   >>> You also gotta think about the fact that Ogg Vorbis' compression algorithm   
   >>> is slightly more superior.  For two identical songs, ripped from the same   
   >>> track, and using a fixed rate 128Kbps encoder, I see on the average, a 10%   
   >>> savings.   
   >>   
   >> Again, nonsense. If the file encoded to Ogg Vorbis is 10% smaller, then   
   >> its bitrate is not 128kbit, but about 115kbit. Now, you may very well   
   >> have specified "128 kbit" when you encoded it, but that doesn't change   
   >> the fact the encoder actually ended up using a lower bitrate.   
   >   
   > So, what you're saying is that the files are actually the same Codec.   
      
   No, what I'm saying is that 'bitrate' is nothing more than the number   
   of bits per second. If your file is 5 minutes long, and is truly   
   encoded at 128 kbit, then it should be 5*60*128*1000 bits in length,   
   which would be 4800000 bytes. It's as simple as that. If that same   
   5-minute file encoded to Ogg Vorbis is 10% smaller, then its bitrate   
   is not 128 kbit/sec.   
      
   > Which, would not be legal.  you're saying that they're really MP3s, just   
   > by a different name.  What a dumbass.   
   >   
   > 128 Kbits/sec is a RAW, UNCOMPRESSED rate.  When that frame is COMPRESSED,   
   > it gets smaller.   
      
   No. The "128 kbit/sec" refers to what comes OUT of the encoder. What   
   goes IN to the encoder is (in most cases) stereo, 44.1 kHz, 16-bit PCM   
   audio, which has a bitrate of about 1.4 megabits/sec (2*2*44100*8).   
      
   > Ogg encodes more efficiently then MP3.   
      
   This can be argued one way or the other with lossy audio formats, however   
   even if Ogg can achieve the same perceived quality with less bits per   
   second, that doesn't mean that 128 is suddenly less than 128. The reason   
   your Ogg files are smaller than your 128 kbit mp3s is because ogg uses   
   less than 128 kbit/sec for the encoded data.   
      
   > Get off your fucking soap box, and go read.   
      
   I have been dealing with this stuff for a long time. You obviously   
   have not. I suggest you go do some research.   
      
   > It might just help you out a little bit, before you spew forth more   
   > information out of your ass.  I have files on the computer that prove my   
   > point, and if they weren't copyrighted under the terms of nonretransmission,   
   > I'd show them to you.   
      
   I don't care how much porn you have on your computer, you're still   
   wrong. Where do you get your information from anyway? Slashdot?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)