Rockbox.org home
release
dev builds
extras
themes manual
wiki
device status forums
mailing lists
IRC bugs
patches
dev guide



Rockbox mail archive

Subject: Re: Playback Speed/Pitch

Re: Playback Speed/Pitch

From: Dominik Riebeling <dominik.riebeling_at_gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2007 17:58:46 +0100

On 1/6/07, Rocker <rocker_at_shaw.ca> wrote:
> Dom wrote:
> It is NOT possible to change the playback speed without affecting the
> pitch (I.e. timestretching) at all. There is no 2% time stretching
> feature in Rockbox, so please stop talking about.
>
> ***Why? Do you have a Headache? This is not the dev's list so why do you
> think anything related to rockbox should not be discussed? IN case you
> forgot: The delete key does exist so if you don't like a thread, use it!

It's not about discussing that. It's about the OP repeteadly claiming
Rockbox to have a feature that's definitely not present and never was.
I also closed a task in the tracker yesterday explaining this (but I
haven't checked if the OP wrote his mail before or after that).
Claiming about features that are not present only causes confusion.
And *especially* as this is the user list it causes confusion among
the users(!) which definitely is a bad thing and a reason to ask him
to stop telling so. I really don't want to run into some "Person A
claimed that feature does exists, so why doesn't it exist anymore"?
argues for stuff that never existed. And a timestretching feature
never existed.

I never said such a feature shouldn't be discussed. But when
discussing the current state should get stated correctly instead of
tellilng something to exist that never did.

> Rockbox is an open source project. It's not a product planned in any
> way to sell. If you like it feel free to donate some money to the
> project. So thinking about what would make it better selling is
> completely useless and of no interests to the Rockbox team.
>
> ***Is that right huh? Do you speak for all the Devs? Sure the project is
> open source but I think the vast majority of the Devs are interested in new
> features that would place rockbox above the rest of the garbage firmware's
> that come stock with supported players. I'll bet that all the core Devs
> take pride in the product even though there not marketing it per say.

I don't speak for all devs. But it's different to tell noone of the
devs is interested to make a sellable product out of Rockbox than to
tell noone is interested in new features. I never said there is no
interest in new features, I simply said that the "it would sell
better" argument is worth nothing in this case.

I really don't think my mail was that misunderstandable as you from
your response seemed to have done. Michael for example got the point
exactly.

And, while I'm at it: it would be nice if you followed our guidelines
for posting to the mailing lists. Michael just yesterday send an email
about this, and I don't think he did so for everyone to ignore it.
Citation marks are a really useful thing, and fullquotes are a real
PITA. I would also appreciate it if you won't truncate my first name
unless you know I'm fine with it (or I'm using that form myself).

 - Dominik
Received on 2007-01-06


Page was last modified "Jan 10 2012" The Rockbox Crew
aaa