Comments on: Linux Games Podcast Free-as-in-Beer Ads

By: Slacker

Slacker — Fri, 22 Sep 2006 09:30:31 +0000

[q]But isn’t ogg more efficient (i.e. a smaller file size) than MP3 at the same bitrate?[/q]Doesn’t really matter in the end which is better or not… he’s already stated he wants mp3 only. End of story. :)

By: kccricket

kccricket — Thu, 21 Sep 2006 08:54:03 +0000

[q]This isn’t like picking a format for archival quality copies. This appears to simply be about picking the most efficient method of transfering audio for what will, in the end, be a low bitrate postcast.[/q]But isn’t ogg more efficient (i.e. a smaller file size) than MP3 at the same bitrate?

By:

Thu, 21 Sep 2006 07:34:56 +0000

what

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 20 Sep 2006 16:40:59 +0000

More people are annoid by the sound-compression artifacts that have the distinct fealing of listening to falling water throu a tall bean-can. The people want to hear the voices, in a low-bandwidhth data-stream or small file that shouldn’t cause any more than 5 MegaBytes over any 60 minute timeslice.

This is not possible when the filtering on those internetwork telephone conversations allows all the breathing and background noise. An efficient choice would not bode well for the introductory music, or are we here to talk?

By: zakk

zakk — Wed, 20 Sep 2006 10:27:02 +0000

[i]“This isn’t like picking a format for archival quality copies. This appears to simply be about picking the most efficient method of transfering audio for what will, in the end, be a low bitrate postcast.”[/i]
Exactly.

By: zborgerd

zborgerd — Wed, 20 Sep 2006 09:46:31 +0000

Eh?

What’s the point if the final MP3 is only going to be 83kbps anyway? You “audio guys” should know that the loss in quality from 128kbps (or higher) to 83kbps (in the same format) is going to make any previous encoding’s lossiness unnoticeable.

This isn’t like picking a format for archival quality copies. This appears to simply be about picking the most efficient method of transfering audio for what will, in the end, be a low bitrate postcast.

By: Paul-Donnelly

Paul-Donnelly — Wed, 20 Sep 2006 09:10:28 +0000

Wouldn’t it make more sense to also accept lossless audio files such as .wav, .aiff, and .au? Since you’re going to encode to mp3 anyway, the final sound quality should be a bit higher if the file doesn’t go through the lossy encoder twice. The three formats I mentioned can be imported by Audacity, a good program for stitching the clips together and matching levels, as well as by any audio program worth its salt, so accepting them would be no extra work for you. Flac would be another good solution if file sizes are a bigger problem for you than the extra decoding step.

We audio guys tend to think about these things a lot.

By:

Wed, 20 Sep 2006 07:51:39 +0000

See the comma?
“If you have a problem with the mp3 nature, don’t write in, or comment.”

That means if you have a problem, you either don’t write in or you comment. So you’re safe. B-)

By: kccricket

kccricket — Wed, 20 Sep 2006 07:34:20 +0000

[troll]
The path to highest audio quality is through OGG.
[/troll]

Seriously though, it’d probably be better to explain why you only want MP3 submissions rather than taking the “my way or the highway” approach. I assume whatever software you’re using doesn’t like OGG Vorbis.

Ooops, did I just comment on your choice of audio codec? Silly me.

Also, don’t people release their works under certain CC licenses so that people can use their works for projects like this? You seem to be making decisions without logical basis.