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
On 2/11/07, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Gregory's proposal to use Ogg/FLAC is not helpfull. This is not the format that is used to analyse pronunciation files.
Looking at Wikipedia, there don't seem to be any patent issues with WAV. However, the format is typically used without compression, wheres Ogg FLAC would be lossless compression. Conversion between the two is trivial for anyone who works with audio, so in light of the fact that we're talking about thousands of pronunciation files, it seems reasonable to give preference to FLAC.
Hoi, By insisting on having flac you add a complication that does not add any value. Why would you use FLAC when the reason for having it in the first place is that people use the wav file in their applications. Thanks, GerardM
On 2/11/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 2/11/07, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Gregory's proposal to use Ogg/FLAC is not helpfull. This is not the format that is used to analyse pronunciation files.
Looking at Wikipedia, there don't seem to be any patent issues with WAV. However, the format is typically used without compression, wheres Ogg FLAC would be lossless compression. Conversion between the two is trivial for anyone who works with audio, so in light of the fact that we're talking about thousands of pronunciation files, it seems reasonable to give preference to FLAC.
-- Peace & Love, Erik
DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
Wiktionary-l mailing list Wiktionary-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiktionary-l
On 2/11/07, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, By insisting on having flac you add a complication that does not add any value.
The value is the compression. Disk space and bandwidth aren't free.
Hoi, Disk space is dirt cheap and, it is not as if we would serve it to the punters. The wav files would be there for when scientists want this stuff. Thanks, GerardM
On 2/11/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 2/11/07, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, By insisting on having flac you add a complication that does not add any value.
The value is the compression. Disk space and bandwidth aren't free.
-- Peace & Love, Erik
DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
Wiktionary-l mailing list Wiktionary-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiktionary-l
wiktionary-l@lists.wikimedia.org