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@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Commons-l] Sound files To: commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org, "The Wiktionary (http://www.wiktionary.org) mailing list" wiktionary-l@lists.wikimedia.org Message-ID: 45CEC172.4070608@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