Hacker News
new
|
past
|
comments
|
ask
|
show
|
jobs
|
submit
login
bornhuetter
on May 9, 2013
|
parent
|
context
|
favorite
| on:
The Onion releases fartscroll.js
Well - which is more efficient?
rubinelli
on May 9, 2013
|
next
[–]
What's important is that neither stinks.
campnic
on May 9, 2013
|
parent
|
next
[–]
I would say that including two audio assets for the same sound seems like a code smell.
IgorPartola
on May 9, 2013
|
root
|
parent
|
next
[–]
Perhaps an MP3 => OGG JavaScript converter is in order.
alanh
on May 9, 2013
|
root
|
parent
|
next
[–]
Transcoding is not a computationally cheap endeavor…
IgorPartola
on May 9, 2013
|
root
|
parent
|
next
[–]
Well, since we are talking about a demo/proof of concept it could be interesting to try.
libria
on May 9, 2013
|
root
|
parent
|
prev
|
next
[–]
In case it slipped right past your nose, the previous comments were a play-on-words in reference to the library.
svachalek
on May 9, 2013
|
root
|
parent
|
next
[–]
I think he meant to say an MP3 => OGG JavaScript converter is an odor.
IgorPartola
on May 9, 2013
|
root
|
parent
|
prev
|
next
[–]
It didn't, but I was wondering about the actual technical aspect of using a single asset type and a codec as a shiv.
akerbeltz
on May 9, 2013
|
prev
[–]
At least in terms of size, the mp3 strings are 23%~ lighter than the ogg strings.
jlogsdon
on May 9, 2013
|
parent
[–]
Curious what quality they encoded them with.
akerbeltz
on May 9, 2013
|
root
|
parent
|
next
[–]
The ogg's bitrate is 35kb/s. The mp3's bitrate is 32kb/s. The sample rate for both is 11025 Hz.
jack-r-abbit
on May 9, 2013
|
root
|
parent
|
prev
[–]
It is a fart sound... how much quality do they need? lol
stevenspasbo
on May 9, 2013
|
root
|
parent
[–]
320 kpbs
Guidelines
|
FAQ
|
Lists
|
API
|
Security
|
Legal
|
Apply to YC
|
Contact
Search:
