Hacker News Reader

And in ogg as well as mp3, to boot. Settling once and for all the great question which of these two codecs is more efficient at encoding flatulence.

It's because Firefox doesn't support mp3 via the HTML5 <audio> tag due to licensing IIRC. IE supports mp3 but not ogg. Chrome supports both.

Well - which is more efficient?

What's important is that neither stinks.

I would say that including two audio assets for the same sound seems like a code smell.

Perhaps an MP3 => OGG JavaScript converter is in order.

Transcoding is not a computationally cheap endeavor…

Well, since we are talking about a demo/proof of concept it could be interesting to try.

In case it slipped right past your nose, the previous comments were a play-on-words in reference to the library.

I think he meant to say an MP3 => OGG JavaScript converter is an odor.

It didn't, but I was wondering about the actual technical aspect of using a single asset type and a codec as a shiv.

At least in terms of size, the mp3 strings are 23%~ lighter than the ogg strings.

Curious what quality they encoded them with.

The ogg's bitrate is 35kb/s. The mp3's bitrate is 32kb/s. The sample rate for both is 11025 Hz.

It is a fart sound... how much quality do they need? lol

320 kpbs