> On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 01:46:40AM +0200, Roberto Sanchez wrote: > > Could someone point me in the right direction here? Also, what does > > everyone recommed for a preferred storage format (wav, mp3, ogg)? > > If you care about quality, wav. > > If you also care about storage space, compress it with flac > (free *lossless* audio codec). > > If you care about storage space more than quality, ogg.
Incorrect! You will not be able to hear the difference between ogg at 128 or even at 96 and wav. Try it out. I usually use ogg at 96. it is same quality as mp3 at 128, but with smaller files. The quality of wave is technically best, listening to it, you will not notice that. > If you care about storage space more than quality and you want to > share your audio files with Windoze lusers, mp3. > > Ogg and mp3 are *lossy* compression formats, which means they throw > away data to help compress the file and therefore produce artefacts on > the output (cf. the fuzzy border around sharp edges in jpeg images). > Ogg produces higher quality than mp3, is faster, and is free. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
