0..9 is a good scale. If we need to add
features at the top or bottom end, we
can compress that option toward the default
(4?), i.e. change the old 9 setting to 8
and add a new setting 9. People will select
the quality based not on what features are enabled/disabled
(which is unimportant, really) but on what their perceived
gain will be:
0 = lowest quality, regardless of actual implementation
9 = highest quality
If we add something that improves quality over the current
9-best quality then that will make the new option 9-best
quality and the old 9 will move to 8.
Acy
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Robert Hegemann
Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2000 8:15 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Re: [MP3 ENCODER] highq mode
> We orignally used V to set the number of bands allowed to be 'over'.
> When
> we changed that, we should have V.
Why? Only to confuse users?
And the idea of V hasn't changed.
btw, what about a "-h x" setting with x in R?
x = -inf : nothing but speed counts
x = 0 : best quality we can do now
x = 0.01 : enables real filters (not yet)
x = +inf : reserved for future tid bits
Then we would have room for thousands of new features!
Enough of that fun.
I don't think that there will be so many new features we
could add to LAME. And if there will be such a wonderful
new thing, it will fit into one of our 0..9 scala.
If, for one reason, it could not be used together with other
settings, then there is the possibility to
add an own switch for that.
And, if people have the choice to select out of the range 0..100,
most will say: "mmh, I don't know what to choose, maybe 100 will
be good, or 30. Ok I take something inbetween. Yes 60."
Robert
--
Sent through Global Message Exchange - http://www.gmx.net
--
MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
--
MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
