From a quality perspective, it's in the eyes and ears of the viewer. Use the
ones you prefer.
From a practical perspective, use the types that work best for you with the
computer and other software and hardware that you have.
Balance the two.
PapaJohn
Enjoy what you have. Keep your 'originals' in whatever form they are.
Tomorrow's technology will give you more options.
" MS" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Can people compare the different types of music and video compression
> formats?
>
> For instance, in music--there is MP3, WMA, and now I have read about one
> called OGG. (I have never used that one before.)
>
> If compatibility is a consideration, then the hands-on winner is Mp3, as
it
> is still far more in use by far more people, more supported by devices,
etc.
> (Although it's clear that Microsoft wants WMA/WMV to become the standard,
it
> certainly isn't at this point.)
>
> But putting compatibility issues aside, can people compare the advantages
> and disadvantages of these different formats?
>
> For example, if one compressed a .wav file with mp3, .wma, and .ogg, and
all
> three resulted in the same file size, which one would have better sound?
>
> Conversely, if all three were compressed to have very similar audio
quality,
> which would have a smaller file size?
>
> Or--all very similar???
>
> I would appreciate any input people can give regarding the advantages and
> disadvantages of these different formats.
>
> Same thing for compressed video formats--. MPEG, compressed .AVI,
compressed
> .MOV (QuickTime), .WMV, .ASF, DIVX, etc., etc.?
>
>
>
|
Similar Threads
