Rockbox mail archiveSubject: Re: Playback channel configuration in rockbox - suggestions & survey
Re: Playback channel configuration in rockbox - suggestions & survey
From: Jens Arnold <arnold-j_at_t-online.de>
Date: Sat, 08 Jan 2005 23:47:26 +0100
>> I think replacing is a bad idea. Add the fine-grained
>> control, but don't remove the simple settings.
> I agree completely.
Hmm. The reason why I think of removing the predefined
standard settings (mono, stereo narrow, stereo, stereo wide) is
primarily to reduce option clutter in rockbox. There are already
so many options in rockbox...
I can think of 3 options how to add the fine-grained stereo
width control (sorted from least to most sound settings option
All: Introduce a "Stereo width" setting, reaching from 0 to 255
1: Remove the "Channel configuration" setting altogether. This
would effectively remove the "Mono left", "Mono right" and
"Karaoke" options, but allow to resemble all other values
(by setting a width of 0% for mono etc. as listed in my
2. Reduce the "Channel configuration" setting to only contain
"Normal", "Mono left", "Mono right", "Karaoke" options.
"Normal" would then be the setting that uses the stereo
width value. This would allow to resemble all old values,
with less option clutter than the next method.
3. Leave the "Channel configuration" setting as it is, and add
an 8th option "Stereo variable", which then uses the stereo
width value. This means all old standard options are still
available, but at the cost of even more option clutter, and
some doubled settings that are effectively identical, which
may also lead to confusion. (E.g. setting "Stereo narrow"
does the same as setting "Stereo variable" and a stereo
width of 50% etc.)
All rockboxers please vote for your favourite way to add the fine
Keep in mind that it is possible to add an indication for the old
standard values to the stereo width setting, e.g. when the value
is set to 50%, it could read "50% (Stereo narrow)". However,
adding this indication would make the setting special, meaning
<opinion> My own vote would be going for method #2, without adding
the special indication. </opinion>
Received on 2005-01-08