upgrade lame quality settings (question)

[doplay]

I just thought it would be nice to be able to select the highest lame quality (q=0). With the following source code change:

Code: Select all

--- Max-0.8.1-source/Encoders/MP3Encoder.old.m  2008-04-27 00:17:30.000000000 +0200
+++ Max-0.8.1-source/Encoders/MP3Encoder.m      2008-06-02 10:35:21.000000000 +0200
@@ -296,10 +296,10 @@
        }
 
        switch([[settings objectForKey:@"encodingEngineQuality"] intValue]) {
-               case LAME_ENCODING_ENGINE_QUALITY_FAST:                 lame_set_quality(_gfp, 7);              break;
-               case LAME_ENCODING_ENGINE_QUALITY_STANDARD:             lame_set_quality(_gfp, 5);              break;
-               case LAME_ENCODING_ENGINE_QUALITY_HIGH:                 lame_set_quality(_gfp, 2);              break;
-               default:                                                                                lame_set_quality(_gfp, 5);              break;
+               case LAME_ENCODING_ENGINE_QUALITY_FAST:                 lame_set_quality(_gfp, 5);              break;
+               case LAME_ENCODING_ENGINE_QUALITY_STANDARD:             lame_set_quality(_gfp, 2);              break;
+               case LAME_ENCODING_ENGINE_QUALITY_HIGH:                 lame_set_quality(_gfp, 0);              break;
+               default:                                                                                lame_set_quality(_gfp, 2);              break;
        }
 

2 would be standard (which i think is fast enough on modern computers), 0 would be high, and 5 would be fast.
What do you think? As it is now, I have to go to the command-line for my favorite lame settings (-b 320 -q 0).
I realize q=0 is somewhat slow (about realtime on my 3 year old G5) but you do the encoding only once,
while you do the listening like 10 times or more.

[doplay]

I've been rethinking. .. maybe my suggestion wouldn't be so good, as q=2 generally stands for 'high' in lame.
lame -h (for 'high') is the same as lame -q 2 , so it is probably better to leave it as it is. But still, a setting for - q 0 would
be great, I think. Maybe ... _QUALITY_HIGHEST = 0???

[sbooth]

I am hesitant to change this because the behavior has been the same since Max 0.2 or even earlier.

I am not necessarily opposed to adding another quality setting, though.

[doplay]

Thanks for your reply! You could call the new setting "max" (appropriately).

[blackmoses]

I'd also very much appreciate it if this feature were added. I've been scouting for a CD ripper for the Mac (to replace CDex, which I used on the PC), and Max is only two features short of being everything I need plus more (the other, which I'm going to try and write up a feature request for, is audio normalization during encoding).