William Ove wrote:
> 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.
You are mistaken. "bitrate" quitte literally means the rate at which
bits pass through a system. The unit of bitrate is bits-per-second.
A file with a known duration and bitrate therefore also has a known
size, as the size can simply be obtained by multiplying the bitrate
by the duration (bits/sec * secs yields bits, a measure of 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.
"sampling rate" means the number of audio samples per second, and is
completely independent of the bitrate.
> 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.
Indeed, and I never claimed otherwise. "sampling rate" and "bitrate"
are two completely different things. I was talking about "bitrate",
and if an ogg file of a given duration is smaller than an mp3 file
of that same duration, then the ogg file has a lower BITrate than
the mp3 file, even if they have the same SAMPLErate.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
