Re: anyone notice speed of 2.17.95 on Windows ?

[Francisco Vila]

2013/12/10 Phil Holmes <address@hidden>

----- Original Message ----- From: "Werner LEMBERG" <address@hidden>
To: <address@hidden>
Cc: <address@hidden>; <address@hidden>; <address@hidden>
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 9:43 AM
Subject: Re: anyone notice speed of 2.17.95 on Windows ?

\faster-but-uglier
\a-lot-faster-but-a-lot-uglier
\ridiculously-fast-and-heinously-ugly

:-) With some serious names, this could be quite useful.

TBH I potentially wouldn't use them.  When I benchmarked with and without skylines, I found there was only a noticeable difference with a lot of markup or similar: "normal" music had almost no effect.  As a result, I concluded with skylining was the correct default.

However, an option similar to \pointAndClickOff would be simple and could be handy: it could include a number of sensible attempted speed ups.

I would use them for very large scores if it'd speed the whole compilation noticeably. Default should be top quality / slowest because quality is to be judged for its default settings. Vast majority of scores that users will do globally are small/medium size. I mean globally!

I remember a group test of MP3 encoders in a magazine, years ago. LAME was scored worst because it had 'lack of sound clarity' but it just had an 8K lowpass filter by default. I'd like to avoid this sort of things.

--
Francisco Vila. Badajoz (Spain)
www.paconet.org , www.csmbadajoz.com