Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Plans For --alt-presets, Etc, In Lame 3.93 (Read 47549 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Plans For --alt-presets, Etc, In Lame 3.93

Reply #100 –
Quote
Hi
I'm not a developer but a kind of a long-time observer. I've been reading lame-dev and this forum for about a year (since when dm-presets where the bleeding edge). Some will say it's too short, others it's enough but it doesn't matter. I read the whole thread and have to admit that I agree with Alexander. He responded very rationally to JohnV's and Dibroms's post and presented some valid arguments.


He may have responded rationally, but he responded rationally to the wrong points.  He mistook us all for windows users begging for new features.  Since his argument seemed to be based on that single assumption, the whole thing was pretty much flawed.

Quote
But I felt disturbed when I read Dibrom's response. It was very emotional, definitely not based on reason or logic in thinking out the problem. To me, it seems that when quality and psychoacoustic compression is involved, Dibrom presents very rational arguments. But here, when lame-dev was mentioned, he irrationally discarded a lot of valid points. This was something I just had  to write about.


I beg your pardon, but I responded with facts and valid points.  You can say my argument was irrational, but without pointing out and debating what was irrational about it, your statement means nothing.

Quote
Dibrom, you wanted to wait with the release until you were absolutely sure nothing was broken. Alexander came here to pinpoint what had been changed, what can cause problems.


Correction, he came here to point out what to the best of his knowledge could cause problems.  Since he had not performed any rigorous listening tests he could not be sure there were not other issues.  He mentioned only slight changes in rounding precision and I responded with a case where that had caused problems.  He said the code was stable and I pointed out that the fast presets were broken, so obviously it wasn't stable.  Since it was not stable in one place, and there were some significant code changes (relatively), and it had not been put through rigorous listening tests, it stands to reason that there are more possibilities where it fails as well that have not been detected yet.

Quote
He told you, Dibrom, "go ahead, test, code, do everything you want and the release will be delayed until you are done". You, Dibrom, responded in a very impolite manner, laughing at the other developers' efforts, depreciating their merits.


Correction again, I laughed at him saying that I was spreading FUD.  Perhaps you missed that part in his argument where he abandoned his so-called reason to accuse me of spreading misinformation to further some sort of agenda.

I believe that there is nothing wrong with me laughing off such flawed accusations.

Quote
I don't understand, what else did you expect Alexander to say? And all this without being subscribed to lame-dev nor lame-cvs, where the developers discuss how the changes to the code affect the resulting bitstream. Without access to these lists your critique, especially the 'lousiness' part, seems irrational to me.


You are aware of the fact that I can read the lists through archives, right?  And you are aware of the fact that I was on the list in the past, right?  And you are aware that I have worked closely with many of the key developers in the past and have many times tried to point out flaws in both the encoder and development process, right?

My statement of "lousiness" as you put it, is based on the very extensive efforts I have made in the past to both improve LAME and to get the LAME development process improved.

A quick example:  Around the time I was finalizing the --alt-presets, I suggested that GPSYCHO be finally disregarded and nspsytune be defaulted because it was clear that nspsytune was better in most arounds than GPSYCHO, especially when the fixes the alt-presets presented were used.  There was much debate on the list (Alexander being one of the prime opponents) and in the end, nothing was done.  The key developers said that  nspsytune would eventually be merged with GPSYCHO and that the problem would take care of itself.  That was..... how long ago?  8 months or so?  Longer?  I don't even remember.... and guess what?  Nothing has changed...

The same thing went for the --alt-presets replacing the normal presets.... guess how long that took?  I made quite an effort to get the --alt-presets to replace the normal presets once and for all... and after I no longer cared to fight about it, the developers finally decided to merge (not replace... so the old and outdated and poor quality presets still exist) the --alt-presets with the normal ones.

Another example would be that right after 3.90 was released, I discovered a critical bug in the fast presets at the last minute.  I tried to get the developers to release a bug fix but they wouldn't do it.  So I released 3.90.2.  I was flamed for it.  And guess what?  Shortly after I released my 3.90.2 they finally decided that they wanted to release a bug fix after all.  Imagine that...

It would not be a lie to say that every effort I have made to improve LAME (aside from the alt-presets... which I just provided code for and nothing else...) has met with resistance and in some cases hostility.  Many times alternatives have been offered by the developers, but all too often the suggestions they themselves made were not followed through with...  The only times there have been exceptions to this rule is when I worked with a concerned developer directly (Naoki, Robert, Takehiro..) and disregarded the entire lame-dev process....

Believe me, I know very well how the LAME development process works.  I don't need to be lectured or chastised by you because I "just don't understand" how it works or something.

Quote
Don't turn people against you. You also keep saying that the developers are personally attacking you. They don't.


Did you miss the part where Alexander accused me of "seeding FUD", as he put it?  Whether or not that's a personal attack, it's definitely an attack of some sort and given the fact that my argument was full of valid points (while Alexander mostly ranted about Windows users and misinterpreted the fact that we were concerned with quality to mean we just wanted more features), I think it's also one not made in good spirit.

The only people that will be turning against me here are the people that don't open their eyes and truly analyze both arguments but instead make their decision about who is right based on emotion and personal preference.  I dare say that you are guilty of that which you accuse me..

Quote
Quote
I think that only keeping the discussion on the [lame-dev] list (I noticed a few people on the list have mentioned that they would prefer this) has the effect of isolating the developers from the users here on HA.


Sorry, but that really upset me. This is the mainstream LAME discussion list:
lame-dev: http://www.geocrawler.com/lists/3/SourceForge/7323/0/
This is the mainstream code change list:
lame-cvs: http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lame-cvs

If, for example, you conduct listening tests and don't report them to lame-dev, than you're creating an isolated community here. Imagine every developer created his own forum. We would have a giant mess then. HA has its role in the community to inform the users about audio-related matters but is not (shoudn't be) meant to replace lame-dev. And sourceforge.com, which hosts lame-dev, is a well-known neutral site for open projects.


I explained my stance on this already.  There are many people here who have much to offer to LAME (even developers that aren't "official LAME developers") who are not going to subscribe to the list.  This has nothing to do with me either.  Therefore, since HA has been so active in it's desires to improve LAME (even if many of the developers have not paid attention to this in the past), it makes sense for them to pay attention to the discussions here.

And as for my "responsibility" to the lame-dev, please.    Read my above statements.  I've already done my part in reporting quality bugs to the list or to the developers.  I've reported results from listening tests and have made suggestions on how to improve LAME.  They've all been either ignored, or on occassion I have even been flamed for my own efforts.  Why should I continue to bother with lame-dev then?

Quote
This is teamwork. You have done a great work.  The others have done a great work too. But the attitude is doing more harm than good.


I agree.  The prevailing attitude of development is doing more harm than good and is also preventing true progress.

Quote
Okay, there are more ppl at this forum than at lame-dev who want to participate in listening tests and are good testers. But cooperation is needed. That applies to the both sides.


And what happens when "cooperation" becomes one sided (i.e. suggestions fall on deaf ears...)?  When there is no real organization or direction, but when someone tries to create a direction there is a hostile reaction?  What then?

I'm sorry if you will view this message negatively (I imagine that you might..), but many of the things you have stated about me, my intentions or experiences, etc, here are just flat out wrong.

Anyway, I will be closing this thread now.  Discussion of 3.93 can continue in a different thread.  If anyone has something further to say along these lines, feel free to private message me.