Rockbox mail archiveSubject: Re: Simplified and uniform volume handling - asking for opinions
Re: Simplified and uniform volume handling - asking for opinions
From: Daniel Stenberg <daniel_at_rockbox.org>
On Tue, 6 Dec 2005, Michael E. DiFebbo wrote:
> I also believe that having a "prevent clipping" function similar to what
All the discussions that have been held on this topic, that I've read, have
The approach Jens suggested has not been widely discussed or tested.
> we also retain at least the portion of Anton's "prevent clipping" function
Yes, we might have to. But we've had Jens' system for the Archos models for
Also, it is not 100% clear exactly how the "scale back bass" should work.
> Many of you have argued, in various ways, that Anton's approach is less
That's only one reason. There are more reasons, including: there are too much
> The premise underlying these arguments is that Rockbox already has too many
The ground rule, that many of us core devs are sticking to, is that adding
In a few years from now, you too will realize why this is a winning concept.
> First, I think that this issue goes directly to the heart of what an audio
I disagree. It is not clear. It is clear that the previous approach surprised
> It's also clear that this issue is critical to the developers;
Yes, but to me at least more in the sense that we want to keep Rockbox simple,
> I don't understand why there is such reluctance to implement a configurable
Because if we can work out a system without an added option, that is an even
> There are many other Rockbox functions that have more numerous and more
That is not a good argument. Just because we have been sloppy or done mistakes
> The peak meter alone, for example, has SIX different options. The LCD has
I would say that each of these are example of option-bloats that we should
But it isn't easy to remove or cut down what has already gone into Rockbox as
And in fact, if we had not been practising the "More Options Are Evil"
> It doesn't seem unreasonable for users to have at least ONE option (ON or
... nope, and there is no major resistance against such an option. Just a mild
> If there really is a belief that Rockbox has too many options
I think most people (both devs and users) would say so.
> Advanced settings
I'm against "advanced" or "expert" options. We've had this argument many times
1) we'd get lots of arguements which options that are advanced
2) all users would still use the advanced options
> I do NOT think that bass limiting should be implemented because that is the
I agree. Rockbox is a lot more than an iriver firmware and we do not mimic
-- Daniel Stenberg -- http://www.rockbox.org/ -- http://daniel.haxx.se/Received on Tue Dec 6 20:42:57 2005
Page was last modified "Jan 10 2012" The Rockbox Crew