[peel] Re: techy. May I borrow your ears?

[Roger Carruthers]

To be honest, I think that .ogg at 1:4 is preferable to lossless compression
at 1:2, because the object of the exercise is to get the best quality sound
into the smallest file size, and if you can¹t hear the difference (and not
many people of our age can ­ myself included, and I have Œtrained¹ ears)
then the smaller file size wins.
 As I¹ve said before, the vast majority of the material we¹re talking about
here was recorded to cassette, and you can¹t improve upon the quality of the
first generation; as you¹re starting from a fairly limited bandwidth and
dynamic range, you¹re pissing in the wind with lossless compression. In
short, go .ogg!
Cheers
Roger


On 23/03/2008 16:25, "lollygagger" <lollygagger@...> wrote:

>  
>  
> 
> Thanks for all your comments about OGG and DVD's and hard drives.
>  
> It is my great distrust in back up hardware e.g hard drives and dvd's, cd's
> that is pushing me to make so many backups.
>  
> With respects to OGG I appreciate compressing data to 1:4 is not as preferable
> as lossless flac 1:2 but I am making this compromise becasue on wav my tapes
> and cd's currently take up 800GB. So I already have it copied in WAV on 2 hard
> drives and now on DVD's. It's taken the best part of 2years to do this. Doing
> about one tape a day.
>