From: wove@mchsi.com   
      
   In <3fa71e36$0$58699$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl> m4rcone@xs4a11.nl wrote:   
   > 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.   
      
   The above information is not correct. Bitrate refers to sampling of data   
   and is not a reference to data size. Ogg Vorbis is as are MP3 and ACC   
   compression schemes. For any given sampling rate the relative size of   
   the file produced by the different formats is dependent on the   
   efficiency of the compression algorithms.   
      
   As with any compressed analog data there will be an eternal debate   
   concerning the trade-offs between quality and file size. But to infer   
   that because a Ogg file is smaller than MP3 file it is sampled at a   
   lower rate is wrong.   
      
   One does not play an MP3, or and Ogg file, one actually plays the   
   decompressed data that is stored in the file. It is important to keep   
   the file itself straight from the data that is contained in the file. It   
   is also important to keep the number of times data is sampled straight   
   from the amount of data that is actually collected.   
      
   bill   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)