Originally posted by cd-rw.org Oh yes I do understand your view. You consider this issue form your personal perspective, while I try to do it from the perspective of the general audience.
Originally posted by Artemis3 Maybe lame should use the original --preset command to accomodate any kind of preset. It already has phone/voice/fm/tape/hifi/cd/studio so it could be a matter of adding some more names. The difficult part would be choosing the proper names.
Originally posted by cd-rw.org You may not give a damn about the MP3 council standard, but I do. Why? Because I don't look at this just as an encoding solution for me or you or the 50 mp3philes that hang around the "LAME scene". I wan't the world to change away from 128-192 to good quality VBR. Currently I am just waiting for your new presets in order to launch a new MP3 encoding article for tens of thousands of people, striking to the core of the MP3 scene.The people have something against VBR. I think that if they are given dm standard as a default, they'll be scared by the large files and are less likely to use it. But if we can sell a decent VBR setting offering good quality and competitive bitrates, the step to talk them out to switch from -standard -> -xtreme is a whole lot smaller. But first we need to get them to use VBR.
Talking about the AQ test, I think that the participants were far for the average. It might be useful info for determining AQ, but certainly it won't tell anything about the Joe Average. The LAME-people tend to have: great sound cards, good headphones, good amps/pre-amps, good speakers, quality wiring all the way...this is not the average people!
Originally posted by MyMaster i must agree with cd-rw.org, simplification needs to made, and i believe that --r3mix should be standard. common guys, almost everyone outhere is trading 128cbr mp3s claiming that those are cd quality, ovbiously --r3mix is better than that, and most of the times it is good enough for the vast majority of users. sure there will be people who require more quality than that, and there's where dibrom's presets kick in. i think it would be wrong to use all dibrom's presets (including standard) because they're are slow, and there are still some of us which are using slow computers, and to be honest speed is also important to me, and quality wise --r3mix is a good compromise between quality and speed and you must remember that after all it is lossy compression.
Originally posted by YouriP (personally, I think these presets shouldn't have names at all, but should be identified by numbers, preferrably with an even amount of choices, e.g. -preset 1-4).
Originally posted by cd-rw.org I suggested the usage of -standard -xtreme -etc. due to the fact that Psytel AAC and MPC use such names for their presets. They are a sort of a standard, make sense and using such presets makes it easier for a newbie to try these different encoders.
Originally posted by kennedyb4 I totally support the idea of people's names not being attached to preset names for two reasons.1.It seems to affect the ego very negatively in some, seeing there nick in that command line box. We have witnessed some very innappropriate behaviour over the last few months which was at least partly related to the naming issue IMO.
2.It seems to cause extreme conservative behaviour for the switches in the given preset. Getting a change implemented without a bruised ego should not be the principle concern.
Originally posted by mp3fan I have to ask. Have tests been done that lead you to believe that nsmsfix is hurting quality when it's used to lower bitrate? And if so, at what setting is the quality being hurt? I'm interested in your findings.
Originally posted by kennedyb4 Clearly you have spent so much time defending yourself from J and --r3mix that you are on red alert for criticism.Please re-read the posts I have made. The comments made are not directed at you whatsoever.
I would however still believe that the removal of any "personal" ID attached to a preset would be a good thing for the reasons I mention.
The conservative behaviour I mention also does not apply to you. Your presets appear to be under regular revision/ testing, yes?
As far as -msfix goes, I understand your explanations for not pursuing this for your presets. I still believe it is a worthwhile adjustment to look at in the future. It may have a place for multimike stuff around 160kbit, for instance. Or 192 cbr or abr.
Originally posted by kennedyb4 Everyone in this community knows who is actually trying to improve the product and who is trying to cling to an idea proven false anyway.