Rockbox mail archiveSubject: Re: Usability and audibility concerns over 0.1dB steps in volume control and the equalizer
Re: Usability and audibility concerns over 0.1dB steps in volume control and the equalizer
From: Marcin Bukat <marcin.bukat_at_gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 20:57:35 +0200
If I understand correctly allowed resolution is 0.1dB. This doesn't mean
the resolution for particular target is 0.1dB. It is defined in audio
driver based on what actual chip supports. The problem arise from the fact
that UI part doesn't respect 'target resolution' which IS a bug. Pamaury
proposed patch on gerrit to fix this. While volume control steps less than
1dB doesn't make much sense probably, it may be desirable to allow finer
resolution with AGC (automatic gain control in recording). Another reason
to allow better resolution are odd codec chips which have 0.75dB or 1.5dB
steps. With fixed 1dB resolution we are forced to lie.
Marcin Bukat (wodz)
2013/7/24 Guillaume Cocatre-Zilgien <guillaume_at_cocatre.net>
> Reposted as a new thread, as requested:
> I would like to see some discussion (and eventually, an authoritative
> decision or consensus) regarding the recent increase in resolution of
> volume and equalizer handling to 0.1dB.
> I highly doubt that a 0.1dB difference is at all audible. Moreover, it
> will probably do absolutely *nothing* on targets with hardware that
> doesn't support it, which I bet means a lot of devices.
> I wouldn't bring this up if it improved anything at all (I don't think
> it does), and if it didn't degrade basic functionality (getting volume
> or the graphical EQ to the desired values is a lot slower).
> It seems that the patches (and commits) were validated a bit hastily,
> by few people, and without much thought given to the consequences.
> Unless someone demonstrates a significant advantage that I haven't
> thought of, and / or fixes the sluggishness of dealing with 0.1dB
> increments with volume keys and in the graphical equalizer, I would
> like these changes to be either completely reverted, or fixed,
> usability-wise. soap, on IRC, proposed that such fine-grained values
> be accepted in the configuration file, but not reflected in the user
> interface. That sounds perfectly acceptable to me, and would probably
> satisfy the most "enthusiastic" users, without bugging everyone else.
> Guillaume Cocatre-Zilgien
Received on 2013-07-24