4 ms·
Well - which is more efficient?
by bornhuetter 13y ago
Well - which is more efficient?
- rubinelli 13y agoWhat's important is that neither stinks.
- campnic 13y agoI would say that including two audio assets for the same sound seems like a code smell.
- IgorPartola 13y agoPerhaps an MP3 => OGG JavaScript converter is in order.
- alanh 13y agoTranscoding is not a computationally cheap endeavor…
- IgorPartola 13y agoWell, since we are talking about a demo/proof of concept it could be interesting to try.
- libria 13y agoIn case it slipped right past your nose, the previous comments were a play-on-words in reference to the library.
- IgorPartola 13y 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 13y agoI think he meant to say an MP3 => OGG JavaScript converter is an odor.
- akerbeltz 13y agoAt least in terms of size, the mp3 strings are 23%~ lighter than the ogg strings.
- jlogsdon 13y agoCurious what quality they encoded them with.
- jack-r-abbit 13y agoIt is a fart sound... how much quality do they need? lol
- stevenspasbo 13y ago320 kpbs
- akerbeltz 13y agoThe ogg's bitrate is 35kb/s. The mp3's bitrate is 32kb/s. The sample rate for both is 11025 Hz.