Hacker News Reader

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.

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

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

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

Curious what quality they encoded them with.

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

320 kpbs

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