[Tfug] Re: audio formats and programs

[t takahashi]

thanks for your comments.  this is the kind of thing that is hard to
find or out of date on the web.

On 11/4/05, Ammon Lauritzen <ammon at simud.org> wrote:
> It makes perfect sense that wav would sound good, it is uncompressed. If
> you have the hd space and the time to spare, you can always record as
> wav and then encode into whatever you want. If you are going to be
> editing the files, this is probably best. That way you don't introduce
> loss from multiple lossy re-compressions.

i don't edit except to remove blanks at the end sometimes.

btw, here are the sizes:

16      ./d.gsm         good but reverb
20      ./d.cvs         low quality
20      ./d.vms         low quality
24      ./d.ogg         good
160     ./d.wav         good

for your amusement:

16      ./d.cvs.bz2
16      ./d.gsm.bz2
20      ./d.vms.bz2
24      ./d.ogg.bz2
120     ./d.wav.bz2

> The good people at xiph.org have also put out another audio codec called
> Speex (speex.org). It is designed specifically for low-bitrate encoding
> of speech.

i looked for it earlier in sarge, but found no command line program
like rec for it.

> You would probably lose a good bit of distribution capability by using
> the codec, but you would be advancing the cause and stuff ;)

if it is smaller, converts to wav or mp3, and available on most
unixes, i will try it.

> developed. Any vaguely modern application should include ALSA support
> and you really should make the change. It is _much_ nicer than OSS or

will alsa actually sound better?  (ain't broke/don't fix yet.)

not sure but i think esd is enlightenment and arts is kde.  i don't
know if rec is using oss or arts.  i am guessing oss.

--
Webmaster: do you believe that people will switch browsers to view
your page instead of going to your competitor?