From: fd0man@chadeux.homelinux.net   
      
   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.   
      
   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.   
      
   Ogg encodes more efficiently then MP3.   
      
   Get off your fucking soap box, and go read.   
      
   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.   
      
   	- Michael   
      
   --   
   Michael B. Trausch                                 AIM:  MBTrausch   
                     Web:  http://chadeux.homelinux.net/users/fd0man/   
   Shell account, $5/mo.  Email to shell AT chadeux DOT homelinux.net   
   To e-mail M. Trausch, put DOGX P180 in your email, with no spaces.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)