Hi,
I don't know if it's custom for new list members to introduce themselves,
but just for the record, I'm new to this list (well, been lurking here for
two weeks now), so, hello to everyone! :)
On Sat, May 27, 2000 at 09:52:49AM +0900, Osamu Shigematsu wrote:
> > I think LAME is a MP3 encoder and not a general audio processing
> > tool. If you think LAME would need them, why not going further
> > and adding ie. a pitch control?
> >
> > The things you suggest are in my opinion better placed in tools
> > like SoundForge. Or if you like, start writing a stand alone tool
> > for normalization (there are already some out there) and a silence
> > trimmer.
>
> I agree this opinion on a plattform which supports pipe. Users can edit
> input audio data before passing it to LAME quite easy way.
>
> I just want to know how can I normalize, and I didn't ask how about expand
> LAME to support normalization.
But wouldn't a lame-integrated normalization (i.e. scaling of the sample
values) improve quality over a seperately done normalization, because the
intermediate results would be floating-point instead of 16bit (or lesser)
integer? I think that a simple scaling option in lame would be useful (i.e.
something like --pre-scale <scalefactor>).
As an alternative, are there any sound formats that use floating-point
values for samples? If so, maybe lame could be made to be able to read such
a format. If not, it should be quite trivial to include a raw floating-point
format for use by custom-written preprocessing tools.
Or am I just too paranoid about normalizing to 16bit integer values?
-- Niklas
--
MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
