Talk:Recommended Ogg Vorbis

From Hydrogenaudio Knowledgebase
Jump to: navigation, search

This is the talk page for discussing changes to the Recommended Ogg Vorbis article.

  • Please do not use it as a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. Use the forums instead.
  • Please read the wiki policy before editing.
  • Sign and date your posts using two dashes and four tildes (--~~~~).
  • Place new comments after existing ones (but within topic sections).
  • Separate topic sections with a ==Descriptive header==.
  • Feel free to use these smilies by embedding their codes:
    Smiley--).png {{smiley|)}} Smiley--D.png {{smiley|D}} Smiley--(.png {{smiley|(}} Smiley--;.png {{smiley|;}}

Out of date

This article is out of date, it should be updated.Matt the cat 14:53, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Major rewrite: Colors, linkback, etc.

Um, the history here. Shouldn't it be in the Ogg Vorbis page instead? And a linkback from the Ogg Vorbis page to this page. --pepoluan 20:22, 4 January 2006 (CST)

I have added linkback from Ogg Vorbis page. Do we need the green text? And can someone tell me if 4.51 has or hasn't became the recommended version? (I personally use 4.51 but no time nor desire to AB 4 and 4.51) --pepoluan 20:44, 4 January 2006 (CST)
Yes, we do need the green text, it add's color to the wiki and sticks with color scheme in the thread ;-D. I personally put the page together with my bare hands, adapted, and changed it. The History should be similiar to, but with less of an emphasis on the codec and more on the binaries. I need to add in the advanced-command line parameters and knowing what binary is which. A lot of the other stuff can be left out. Thanks for fixing the table btw. If you see any other articles you can add information to with a reference or a source feel to free to do so. --HotshotGG 5:52, 5 January 2006 (EST).
I'm all for color in the Wiki... but why must green :D
BTW you are wrong about 4.51. 4.51 is bugfix of 4.5, which is improvement from 4.
So from 4.5 to 4.51 there's no code change (other than bugfix), but from 4 to 4.5 there's improvement in quality.
See the announcement here. --pepoluan 07:48, 6 January 2006 (CST)

Here is what I am thinking. I think we should remove the green color's on the text and just use color's for syntax highlightening and important stuff. You can continue to edit the page and I will come back and check out it. It's look good for the most part there is a lot of stuff that nees to be edited though. --HotshotGG 07:45, 7 January 2006 (EST).

Tried to remove to greens. I think it looks overcolored now... black, then blue, then black, then green... the textblocks are too short I think to make it multicolored? --pepoluan 07:30, 10 January 2006 (CST)
I really think there was too much green. The page is quickly degrading into a rainbow page. So I recolorized everything. And change the ugly vendor tag list to a table. --pepoluan 13:56, 19 January 2006 (GMT)

aoTuV relation with libvorbis

Note: aoTuV beta 2 was merged in libvorbis 1.1, but aoTuV beta 3 was never merged in -- (Who wrote this?)

Tables & Previews

Heyyy... the tables are now grey! I think the tables are better green... but the text better black.
And will we please use the Show Preview button before Saving :P it drives me nuts seeing the history is so long... --pepoluan 11:46, 22 January 2006 (CST)

Vendor Tag table

Do you think the Vendor Tag table is a bit too long to be placed here? It's not that related to the topic anyway? Perhaps we can make another page, i.e. Vorbis:Vendor Tags. --pepoluan 10:22, 12 May 2006 (CDT)

I don't see a need too. The less pages that are needed to get the message across in the wiki the better. --HotshotGG 1:43, 14 May 2006 (CDT)
But the info in the table is (1) Useful for decoding not encoding, and (2) Not really useful anyway.
The page is getting too wieldy, anyways :-( --pepoluan 02:32, 28 May 2006 (CDT)

I need the Vendor Tag for Lancer based on aoTuV Beta 5!

And I'm dying to move the Vendor Tag table to somewhere else!

--pepoluan (talk | contribs) 13:13, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

Clunky page

When you quickly read the page, you see first the 4.51 encoders, and only after version 4. You have to read the page in detail to learn that version 4 is really the recommended encoder, and version 4.51 has to get more "peer review". I think the recommended encoder should be listed first, and the latest versions shown below, for those wanting to experiment. --Norz 08:43, 9 July 2006 (CDT)

IMO this page is getting too big, clunky, and confusing. Split this up! --pepoluan 11:59, 10 July 2006 (CDT)

The wiki page should be split and the descripentcy between 4.5 and 4.51 needs to resolved. I was going to re-edit that, but I forget about it. The only reason I have this page on my watchlist is, because it's a popularity contest. I usually focus my efforts elsewhere in the wiki. Let's see what we can do with it though and with your help I was able to transcribe into the wiki, which wouldn't have been done anyway had I not remember QT post from last year anyhow. --HotshotGG 11:17, 10 July 2006 (CDT)

Here's a list of my recommended changes. If no one objects in one week, then that means this list is accepted and changes will commence (by whomever).
  • History needs to be bulleted, with particular stress on the version & date.
  • Recommended Vorbis Encoders need to be restructured. I'm not really sure how, but 3rd party source code (i.e. aoTuV) needs to be moved somewhere.
  • Released Binaries (i.e. the Vorbis Vendor tag) needs its own page, linked to from History.
  • Advanced Encoder Settings needs its own page, linked to from Recommended Encoder Settings.
I'm sure there are other possible improvements. But this is my list. Now, to figure out the nomenclature of the new pages.
--pepoluan 15:17, 12 July 2006 (CDT)

Again it doesn't need to be split. You are just making things more confusing for the average user. Work on some other guides in the wiki. You are stripping out pivotal information that some folks need. --HotshotGG 19:32, 14 July 2006 (CDT)

Okay. NP. My entry above was done the same time as I post the suggestion in the forums. So we'll leave it as it is then.
--pepoluan 13:00, 17 July 2006 (CDT)