not for stdin/stdout it wouldn't be useful.
_J
In the new year, Ross Levis wrote:
> Don Melton wrote:
>
> > --qual low equivalent to highq=9
> > --qual normal " " " 5
> > --qual high " " " 2
>
> The idea to create secondary options may be a good way to avoid confusion.
> LAME is starting to take off as a quality encoder so the user base is likely to
> explode soon. It would be good to get this sorted out ASAP. I still favour a
> reversed numbered approach rather than low/normal/high etc to enable far more
> flexibility in the future.
>
> > -V3 -b160 -B320
> > when it might seem more obvious to do this:
> > --vbr 192 --min 160 -max 320
>
> I don't think this can work. Someone that always encodes classical music, for
> example, would find the average bitrate is nothing like someone who always
> encodes rock. It would be too confusing. For your example I still prefer
> "--vbr 6".
>
> My thoughts are wandering too far here but: it would be possible to use your
> format if the resulting average was forced to be close to the selected
> bitrate. This would take an extra dummy encoding pass through the file to
> establish which -V setting to use and then encode it. I suspect this would be
> possible but I don't know how useful it would be.
>
> Ross.
>
>
> --
> MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
>
--
MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
