Rockbox mail archive
Subject: Re: Need opinion about voicing for software codec targets
Re: Need opinion about voicing for software codec targets
Overall, I get the impression that keeping the 'ducking' is a good
thing, so I'll go with that. It was also the consensus on IRC.
As for voice while paused, I do not promise this for a 3.0 feature, as
it will involve one of many Bad Things. The penalty choices for adding
voice while paused basically amount to: ~512k of RAM _and_ one of:
between 0 and 1/4 second of lost audio, between 0 and 1/4 second of
re-played audio or some very complex partial pcm buffer DMA chunk logic.
None of these sounds very attractive to me, so voice while paused is
probably out until someone else either does it or comes up with a
brilliant way to do it.
On Wed, 04/19/06 at 17:06:03 +1000, James Teh wrote:
> Hi Brandon,
> I personally wouldn't want to lose the mixing, as although you sometimes
> have to rewind, it does allow for less interruption, particularly if
> listening to music. Also, one can pause the playback if one desires to
> hear the speech alone (when this works, anyway; currently, speech isn't
> possible when playback is paused). It might be nice to have the volume
> of the playback dropped a touch more than it is now, although perhaps
> creators of voice files just need to be careful to raise the volume enough.
> Brandon Low wrote:
> >The current playback code plays the voice clips mixed with audio if you
> >are playing audio. Is this good, or would it be better to play the
> >voice _instead_ of the playing audio?
> >I'm about to start working on getting voice into a releasable status on
> >swcodec, so I'm interested in opinions on this before I get too deep
> >into it.
> James Teh
> Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
> WWW: http://www.jantrid.net/jamie/
> MSN Messenger: email@example.com
> Jabber: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Yahoo: jcs_teh
Received on Thu Apr 20 01:15:14 2006
Page was last modified "Jan 10 2012" The Rockbox Crew