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.?

" MS" wrote in message

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?

It's more complex than just formats, as several formats have alternative
compression programs, each with its own little set of characteristics and
sonic qualities. For example, I dunno how many MP3 coders there are, but its
up in the LOTS range.

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?

Listen for yourself by downloading samples from

http://www.pcabx.com/product/coder_decoder/index.htm


Conversely, if all three were compressed to have very similar audio
quality, which would have a smaller file size?

Hard to compare because the coders have parameters that control things like
that.

Or--all very similar???

I don't think so.

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.?

Even more alternatives and complexity. While it is possible in principle for
a audio coder to be sonically transparent, that is code and decode without
any detectable effects, with video visual transparency is far more elusive.