Hi Brent! On Wed, 10 Oct 2001, Brent Geery wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Oct 2001 14:31:22 -0400, Artemis3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > >Hi Brent! > > > >On Tue, 09 Oct 2001, Brent Geery wrote: > > > >> For some unknown reason, there seems to be hostile resistance to > >> adding a simple balance adjusting feature to LAME. I'm not sure I > >> understand the hostility. It wouldn't add an load to the programmers > >> load, as the functions are already there in the --scale function. > > > > I don't understand what you mean with "resistance". You are > >forgetting the real purpose of lame is not to process audio; it > >was a generous gift that some processing is already done with > >it, but the real solution is to use the proper tools. > > Maybe you picked poor words, but LAME's ONLY job is processing audio! > In any case, no matter how you define the word, LAME already > implements the scale feature (like it or not.) All I am asking is for > it to act on a single channel. If you start a crusade to remove the > scale function, then your comments carry more weight. As is stands, > this argument makes little sense. Unlike what you may think, i'm not closed minded to think everything must be black or white, or that in any case, everything should be done using only my point of view. But since you attempted "flack" those with different point of views simply using diminutives.., i'm going to give you my real opinion. You are the one with the problem, and, all the source is commonly "unbalanced" for you. So, instead of modifying each and every one of the sources (and egoistically prevent others with normal hearing to enjoy it properly), why can't you simply use a pre-amp or amp with a balance control already set? Heck, all sound cards i know have a balance control, whats the need to distort all the sources when you can simply move the balance slider? I even have two headphones with separate gain/volume wheels for each speaker; maybe you should get one of those... > And while we are at it, why not remove the low-/high-pass filtering? > This is also "processing" the wav. I can name lots of other features > that should be removed, under your definition of what LAME should do. And indeed, if you search in the archives... But be grateful that you got some features in there for free. What i said is, that's not lame main function. In other words, don't be lazy and learn to use many tools together and stop bitching in the mailing list that you are facing resistance (when you are actually getting _positive_ response from the developers...) > > In any case, like in any open project, you are not supposed > >to *ask* but to _give_. That means, do the patch, submit it, > >and hope for the best. Can't program? That's sad; you can't > >force anyone to do it for you, specially the few lame > >developers that are already *very* busy focusing on the > >priority things. > > Who is "forcing" anyone to do anything? I have posted a feature > request; and so far, am only getting fanboy flack. I have received > private emails from *programmers* (not fanboys) expressing their > interest in implementing the feature. From their input, I'm told it > will take under a dozen lines of code to implement. However, they > want to wait for the alpha to go beta. Then you did got positive response. What was the purpose of writting many times to the mailing that you were facing "resistance"? Who is flacking who? > > This message goes also to the person requesting better > >documentation; maybe its time to find the answers for himself, > >make a patch to update the documentation and submit the > >changes. > > Yeah, that's just what we want: the blind leading the blind. Part of > programming is documenting your code. Ever try reading another's > code, and figure out what it does!? :) Well, all i say is, if they don't care, you can't force them. Indeed, source code is a kind of documentation. But anyway i'm positive that you can find the answer to what each and everyone of the switches means, simply searching in the mailing list archives, or the various mp3 related forums. So it's not true i hasn't been explained, it simply none has had the time or desire to accumulate all that information and present it organized in a kind of readable documentation. Perhaps the stable release should have updated documentation, but take note that most of the switches are considered "experimental/don't mess unless you know, and if you know you won't be asking what they do on the first place" :) -- $B!V$3$N%;!<%i!<%`!<%s$,7n$K$+$o$C$F!#!#!#!!$*$7$*$-$h!*!W(B $B!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!7nLn$&$5$.!"#1#9#9#2!#(B $B!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!VH~>/=w@o;N%;!<%i!<%`!<%s!W(B Home page: http://www.geocities.com/tokyo/6905 Anime radio: http://www.live365.com/stations/124148 Jpop/Jrock radio: http://www.live365.com/stations/228551 perl -le '$_="6110>374086;2064208213:90<307;55";tr[0->][ LEOR!AUBGNSTY];print' _______________________________________________ mp3encoder mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/mp3encoder
