sorry, I get this in digest mode. I didn't realize someone already said that
-bawolff
In response to:
Message: 1
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 08:10:42 +0100
From: Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Commons-l] Sound files
To: commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, "The Wiktionary
(
http://www.wiktionary.org) mailing list"
<wiktionary-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Message-ID: <45CEC172.4070608(a)gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>Hoi,
>I read this in digest mode so let me answer things together.
>
>The reason why .ogg files are not great is because indeed it is a lossy
>algorithm. There is some great software to analyse pronunciation files;
>a program called "praat" is worth mentioning it is even licensed under
>GPL. There is even functionality in there to do with IPA transcription.
>Gregory's proposal to use Ogg/FLAC is not
helpfull. This is not the
>format that is used to analyse pronunciation files. The notion that a
>specific quality was "the gold standard" at the time is indeed that. It
>used to be, times have changed.
>The Shtooka program that we are talking about CAN
create both a WAV and
>an OGG file. It just needs asking. It would be helpful if we learn
>sooner rather than later what the outcome is of this request.
>Thanks,
> GerardM
Umm, so what's stoping you from converting it back
to wav? ogg/FLAC is
completely lossless, so no information will be lost.
bawolff