Linked by Kroc Camen on Tue 16th Feb 2010 13:45 UTC
OSNews, Generic OSes We fought you off for as long as possible, but in the end we had to give in :) What decided it was that OSnews is not a mainstream source of news like Engadget or even sites where they actually employ people, we are not an entity like AOL that fails to grasp the reality of the web today and the issues surrounding the technology landscape. We have the technical background, and the community to boot to know that when we criticise others, we had better be doing the right thing ourselves. Get the feed here.
Thread beginning with comment 409869
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Thanks
by miles on Wed 17th Feb 2010 22:13 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Thanks"
Member since:

Ok, so basically you OSNEWS staff can both pat yourselves on the back for being such a good example providing an OGG version, while at the same time discouraging others sites to do so by complaining how it increases your workload by 100%... but when explained how it doesn't have to be so you're just calling that the Inquisition?

Offering 20 different files format doesn't increase anybody's workload by 100% nor 1900% - if you choose to look at the upload bar for one hour, it's your personal choice. However, if you then whine about your martyrdom for free format's cause, don't you expect to be called out on it?

As for the lack of GUI tools for editing OGG, first it wouldn't save you any time if they did exist (using Audacity I spend more time in the menus switching the format to export than just typing the few letters the command takes in a CLI -- ever heard of auto completion?), second they do exist at least for Windows and Linux, and you probably just don't know them yet for OSX.

Note: I could care less for OGG or MP3. When talking about lossy formats for music, it makes sense to use AAC or OGG, but for a podcast anything would actually do the job. In this day and age, where we're supposed to have learnt how computers can save ourselves time for fastidious tasks though, I can't fathom how one could pretend that exporting audio in different formats increases his workload by 100%.

Edited 2010-02-17 22:17 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: Thanks
by Kroc on Thu 18th Feb 2010 09:03 in reply to "RE[6]: Thanks"
Kroc Member since:

I didn't say it increased my workload by 100%, that's a misquote. Do not continue that fallacy.

Because of the change in format it has added extra steps to the process, as well as the additional upload time. Adding another format adds time, there is no escaping this truth, despite this lengthy thread's persistence that I am doing something wrong. It still takes CPU time to transcode and it still takes time to upload, and it's taking more time than before because I have to export an intermediate format because GarageBand is so crap, and I can't really use anything else because it either doesn't support OGG, or is just plain crap and won't save me time (Don't mention Audacity or I will bite your head off).

So few stuff works with OGG that I can't get an integrated solution like Ubercaster. This is the fault of OGG developers for not making a compelling case for software to support OGG and for the OGG tools being so obtuse. The QuickTime component on Mac is a year out of date and completely stagnant and encoding video with OGG is such an alien experience to most video engineers (who are not programmers) that few have ever heard of the format.

There are no compelling tools for OGG. Where's the open source Ubercaster? Podcasting has been mainstream since 2004 and been around since about 2000 and still I'm expected to do things with the command line.

The fact is that working with OGG is frustrating and hard for most people who _just want to get shite done_ and I'm only providing OGG for the podcast in the hope that with time I will be able to help improve the situation.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[8]: Thanks
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 18th Feb 2010 09:44 in reply to "RE[7]: Thanks"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:

We could just use Windows to record the podcast. The Mac is horrible when it comes to decent codec support, whereas DirectShow codecs are maintained quite well.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[8]: Thanks
by miles on Thu 18th Feb 2010 18:05 in reply to "RE[7]: Thanks"
miles Member since:

Your last podcast (OSnews Podcast #20.X: The Apple Tablet) is using 44100 Hz and 96 kbps for voice. "Episode 31: In Which We Discuss the Inevitable" is 32000 Hz, 48 kbps. I didn't check the others.

For voice, it's overkill. You could easily go down to 22050 Hz for the MP3 and OGG and keep the same quality, while going into the 30 kbps range. It's human voice, which means 44100 Hz isn't buying you any extra quality. Or, in other terms, somebody with a better microphone would still be able to produce better quality audio with 22050 Hz or less and a a third of the bitrate you're using. Just compare with FM radio audio programs recorded in studio - even with better quality than most podcasters to start with, 22050Hz is more than enough for them to sound better than a podcast.

You could produce half the size (or less) while keeping the same exact quality. Basically, you'd keep the same upload time (or less) you had when you just uploaded MP3, but you'd be uploading 2 different formats.

As for an audio editing tool in OGG, you don't see one because any donkey who ever had the idea to produce one has long ago been taken behind the barn and shot. Nobody in their right mind would use OGG for editing - audio programs use a non-destructive format, and for good reasons.

Reply Parent Score: 2