> > > But depending on how slow this will actually be, it maybe not always be
> > > desired, so I'm not sure if this should make the difference between a
> > > --quality 8 or --quality 9 (9 being the maximum) option, if you know what
> > > I mean.
> > I think a different switch should be fixed for this, like -eh [extra high
> > quality].
> But isn't --quality just a more detailde -h ?
> --quality 0 --> no -h option
> --quality 6 --> -h
> --quality 9 --> your -eh option
> and some in between
Yeah, you would say so, but depending on how slow is it, and the extra
quality you will get in return for it, it may be a bit deluding, since
some people will want the highest quality and then claim lame to be very
very slow, because they just tried maximum quality, while lame without the
new huffman stuff (I suck at technical MP3 knowledge ;)) might do almost
exactly the same, but very much faster. But I don't know how big the
difference in speed/quality will be. It's just a thought. Dismiss it if
everone thinks differently ;)
Ivo
--
MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
