I think resampling and low-pass are matters that can directly affect quality of coding. I think balance is a hardware matter and should be left that way. (Although I'm still pushing for 24 bit decoding!)
David ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stefan Ohlsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2001 8:45 AM Subject: Re: [MP3 ENCODER] Feature request > On Wed, 10 Oct 2001, David Balazic wrote: > >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. > >> > >>Some are arguing against the feature, simply because they don't think > >>*they* wouldn't use it. This is both childish, and insensitive. What > >>do you care if someone else finds a use for the simple-to-add feature? > > > >Code bloat. LAME is a mp3 encoder, not a sound editor or effect generator. > > > I'm sorry, but I think LAME already went down that path with resampling and > lowpass. Balance control is in the same category, only less frequently used. > Sox can definately do resample and lowpass, but it's very convenient to have > it builtin in LAME. Compared to those, balance is trivial. > > /Stefan > -- > [ Stefan Ohlsson ] � http://www.cixit.se/ � [ 020-4702019 / +46-709-561314 ] > > _______________________________________________ > mp3encoder mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/mp3encoder > _______________________________________________ mp3encoder mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/mp3encoder
