5 ms·
And in ogg as well as mp3, to boot. Settling once and for all the great question which of these two codecs is more efficient at encoding flatulence.
by morsch 14y ago
And in ogg as well as mp3, to boot. Settling once and for all the great question which of these two codecs is more efficient at encoding flatulence.
- bornhuetter 14y agoWell - which is more efficient?
- rubinelli 14y agoWhat's important is that neither stinks.
- campnic 14y agoI would say that including two audio assets for the same sound seems like a code smell.
- IgorPartola 14y agoPerhaps an MP3 => OGG JavaScript converter is in order.
- alanh 14y agoTranscoding is not a computationally cheap endeavor…
- IgorPartola 14y agoWell, since we are talking about a demo/proof of concept it could be interesting to try.
- libria 14y agoIn case it slipped right past your nose, the previous comments were a play-on-words in reference to the library.
- IgorPartola 14y agoIt didn't, but I was wondering about the actual technical aspect of using a single asset type and a codec as a shiv.
- svachalek 14y agoI think he meant to say an MP3 => OGG JavaScript converter is an odor.
- akerbeltz 14y agoAt least in terms of size, the mp3 strings are 23%~ lighter than the ogg strings.
- jlogsdon 14y agoCurious what quality they encoded them with.
- jack-r-abbit 14y agoIt is a fart sound... how much quality do they need? lol
- stevenspasbo 14y ago320 kpbs
- akerbeltz 14y agoThe ogg's bitrate is 35kb/s. The mp3's bitrate is 32kb/s. The sample rate for both is 11025 Hz.
- xhroot 14y agoIt's because Firefox doesn't support mp3 via the HTML5 <audio> tag due to licensing IIRC. IE supports mp3 but not ogg. Chrome supports both.