I am not a developer, I am user who has a lot of praise for Ogg Vorbis.
In my application see:
http://www.netforall.com/images/wsrimages/wsr_encode.png,
http://www.netforall.com/screenshots.html,
the feature that I really missed was the ability to encode a short
sample of say 15 sec with a simple flag like --duration and the program
does all the calculations and just produce a 15 sec sample.
I think this feature is important for those who may use Ogg Vorbis to
advertise new CD realeases and let the customers listen to a short
sample.
The following is unrelated and I might just be way behind, but I found
these problems while calling in from within a Java program oggenc in
Windows:
1. Without the silent option, the encoding will proceed, then lock.
That is the calling program will not know that the encoding is
finished, so it just sits and wait.
2. adding the tags (author, title,...) again from within a Java program
did not work.
I hope these comments are not out of place. Thanks,
Poly.
> On Sat, 2002-08-24 at 11:32, Robert Michel wrote:
> > Would it be possible to reinclude a forked encoder into a common
> > encoder?
> >
> > Can users on this list support or influence developer in choosing
> > the next features?
> > If yes, then it will be a long list of possible features and
arguments> > about them to rank it most powerfull to make vorbis ogg populaire.
> > I do agree, that speed is important, but I want to stress, that this
> > is not the only criteria. If Vorbis Ogg hasn't reached a better
> > quality than MP3, it wouldn't get as much attentions as now.
> >
> > So before we dispute on the first 2 features, what more features
> > could be of interest, and why?
>
>
> Historically, the most interest in Vorbis has come from these groups
(in> no particular order):
>
> 1) People who want to listen to music on their PC
> 2) People who want to stream music to Internet listeners
> 3) Developers who want to compress audio for games (there are several
> games out there that already use Vorbis)
> 4) People who want to listen to music on their handheld devices
>
> For 1 & 2, the quality/size ratio is very important. Encoding speed
is> important for 2. Decoding speed is important for 3 and 4. Latency
for> most Internet streamers is not a big deal.
>
> Telephony has been brought up a couple times in the past, and that
would> require low latency plus a good quality/size ratio (plus maybe better
> decoding speed for handheld devices). I'm not a codec expert, but I
> would suspect that improving latency would decrease quality (if for no
> other reason than you would have less buffered audio to analyze).
> Additionally, telephony applications usually are interested in
encoding> speech, which Vorbis is not optimized for. Have you looked at Speex?
> (http://speex.sf.net) It is a speech codec which will probably have
> much better compression on voice. I don't know how the latency is on
> it.
>
> That said, interesting things might be accomplished by someone
tinkering> with making a low latency Vorbis encoder. However, my guess would be
> that it would have to remain a fork. That's alright, though. As long
> as it produced a valid Vorbis stream, the stock decoder (or any other
> decoder, for that matter) would work just fine on it.
>
> ---
> Stan Seibert
>
>
>
> --- >8 ----
> List archives: http://www.xiph.org/archives/
> Ogg project homepage: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/
> To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to 'vorbis-
request@xiph.org'> containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the body. No subject is
needed.> Unsubscribe messages sent to the list will be ignored/filtered.
>
>
<p>--- >8 ----
List archives: http://www.xiph.org/archives/
Ogg project homepage: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/
To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to
'vorbis-request@xiph.org'
containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the body. No subject is
needed.
Unsubscribe messages sent to the list will be ignored/filtered.