My two bits to this *flaming (literally and figuratively!) topic:
I believe the only people who have the right to assert that a feature
would be too hard to add or bloat the code too much are the programmers
themselves. So far, I haven't seen anything from them. Since LAME already is
a basic audio-processor (compared to the FhG codecs which I believe can only
up/downsample), it would be nice to see a L-R scale feature in the near
future. I do agree that furthering MP3 quality/size goals is LAME's primary
objective, but just because LAME is not made by Micro$oft but is OpenSource
does not mean it need have ZERO frills.
Not everyone can program, and LAME currently has quite a few features
that were requested by members of MP3-ENCODER. Unless the developers
categorically state that they will not implement a feature, the other
members should not take up cudgels on their behalf---the developers can
speak for themselves.
Feature requests are the beauty of OpenSource....do you think Micro$oft
would add a feature you request? Let us non-developers only suggest LAME's
future, and not hypothesize about its implementation.
Cheers,
Ishaan
P.S.: Meanwhile, I suggest Brent use his systems L-R balance, or
alternatively, add an external equalizer (the Koss EQ-30 is an excellent one
for about $30) that can change the balance. This will have the added
advantage of not permanently altering the mp3s
_______________________________________________
mp3encoder mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/mp3encoder
