Howdy, > I agree with the majority on this one.
I must have missed the vote - when was it scheduled? > Lame is (or ain't..) > an MP3 encoder > and not an audio processing tool. The only reason lowpass and > resampling > filters were added is because such processing is required by > Lame itself at > certain bitrates, and the newbies won't know at which > specific bitrates they > should lowpass or resample (and definitely not how they > should do it). Huh. And here I thought they were added because someone requested the feature... > Scale > has actual benefit over audio processing tools, because it is > lossless. And independent L/R scaling has more or less benefit? > Any > options besides these are indeed just bloating the code. You're sure about that now, are you? Hallelujah, LAME has achieved perfection! > I'm > not asking for > a built-in EQ either am I? Well, I'd hope you weren't asking for that because you know that other people already have, and the consensus eventually developed that it was beyond the scope of LAME's mandate. (Which consensus, is, of course, always subject to review.) > I see no need to support what is perhaps beneficial to 1% or > less of the > total audio community. What percentage of the 'total audio community' do you think uses LAME? Or did you mean the 'LAME using portion of the total audio community'? And if you meant the latter, then what percentage of them do you think use some of the more obscure LAME options that already exist? > Feel free to plonk me for this, but > that's just my > opinion. Maybe you should just agree to disagree. _I_ don't plonk anyone. (I had to look up the meaning of the term 'plonk', in fact. I also, BTW, disagree with the assertion that plonking someone is not rude, or with the corollary contention that rudeness justifies rudeness.) And I'm happy to agree to disagree about minor things like whether or not features should be added, especially since I have yet to take it upon myself to add any features to LAME, though I am a programmer, and, in fact, an audio codec programmer. I'm not so happy, though, with the strange manner in which random list members presume to speak for the list, or even for the majority of the list. This list is for discussion of mp3 encoders (primarily LAME, though we often see related topics). Its main value is as a forum for feedback on LAME, including and especially bug reports and feature requests. LAME itself is the consensus product of many developers and 'suggesters'. It has no Platonic ideal state. It is more or less useful. The idea is to make it more useful, which is a highly fluid concept. Thus it seems to me to be unhelpful to deter feedback by claiming that a feature is unnecessary/useless/etc, in any sense other than personally. (I.e. "I personally would have no use for L/R scaling, and suspect as a non-programmer that it would add unnecessary UI complexity," is just fine.) In the end, developers will or won't add features based on any number of criteria - many of which are inobvious to non-developers. But it's hard to add features that you haven't thought of. Of course, this is just my own opinion... <insert smiley thing here or don't> Sorry to rant, Alex _______________________________________________ mp3encoder mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/mp3encoder
