[vorbis] [OGG IS BEST, BUT UNUSABLE! (very important)]

[craig duncan]

Jack Moffitt wrote:
> 
> had to share this one :)
> 
> jack.
> 
> ----- Forwarded message from [redacted] -----
> 
> Delivered-To: jack at i.cantcode.com
> From: [redacted]
> To: <feedback at vorbis.com>
> Subject: OGG IS BEST, BUT UNUSABLE! (very important)
> Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 10:08:38 +0100
> X-Priority: 3
> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
> X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
> 
> Hello,
> 
> I've been studying mp3 sound quality for a long time and it was a great surprise to find an other decent encoder.
> OGGVorbis has superior sound quality to mp3 ABR/CBR 128, that's a fact.
> So why did I call it 'UNUSABLE'?!?

<snip rest of msg>

I don't know about the feasibility of just cutting and pasting Lame's
VBR code but, as for the rest of it, it sounds like a reasonable
objection to me (i haven't started using Ogg yet because i don't feel
it's really ready for my purposes yet . . . and these comments bear very
much on how usable it would be for me).  So what is the implication of
"had to share this one" with a smiley face?  Did you find the
"criticism" absurd or am i missing something?

craig

--- >8 ----
List archives:  http://www.xiph.org/archives/
Ogg project homepage: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/
To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to 'vorbis-request at xiph.org'
containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the body.  No subject is needed.
Unsubscribe messages sent to the list will be ignored/filtered.