Re: Simplified and uniform volume handling - asking for opinions
Hi, I think the new volume setting is fine and the -db setting is very intuitive when you get used to it. But I think it wasn't a good idea to remove clipping prevention completely. The argument was: almost no hifi-equipment uses clipping prevention, so why should we use it? Rockbox is better than every other dap-firmware I have seen yet, so I use it because it is NOT a standard software. When I am using headphones I couldn't care less about clipping because the highest volumes kill my ears so I don't use them. But I do connect my H120 to my stereo equipment at home and then I have to set the volume to line level. Before this new method was implemented, I could turn volume up and everything was fine. Now I have to go tho the options menu and have to scale the bass back manually to prevent clipping. You removed a very useful setting (scaling back bass/treble to prevent clipping) just because it is more mainstream this way. Even the original iriver-firmware does clipping prevention! So I would suggest to include one (only one) option: Apply Clipping Prevention: YES/NO which scales back bass and treble in the background when it is set. I hope you understand what I want to say. I'm not sure because english isn't my native language. Simon (from Germany)
Re: Simplified and uniform volume handling - asking for opinions
On 08.12.2005, Magnus Holmgren wrote: My patch removes clipping prevention altogether (like we had it on Archos Recorders Ondios for years, btw). And makes fade on stop pretty ugly (sounds get chopped rather than change smoothly), it seems... :) Oooops, that's a bug. I forgot to adjust the fade function, since I don't use it myself. I'll fix... Regards, Jens
Re: Simplified and uniform volume handling - asking for opinions
On 12/8/05, [IDC]Dragon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't think I've ever seen any audio playback equipment of any kind offer clipping prevention. Haha, I just envision how odd it would be if my amp would start turning other knobs as I crank up the volume... lol. That's a good one. lImbus
Re: Simplified and uniform volume handling - asking for opinions
Christi Alice Scarborough wrote: I do believe that there is value in an option that prevents clipping, particularly if it can be implemented in a platform independent way. Personally I find the whole idea of clipping prevention somewhat odd, very much protecting the user from himself which really isn't Rockbox' style. I don't think I've ever seen any audio playback equipment of any kind offer clipping prevention. Can someone give me a few examples of equipment that does this? (My old NAD amplifier has soft clipping, but that's not the same thing. It doesn't prevent distorsion, just smoothes it a bit.) If there's ONE thing users know about audio equipment it is that if you crank the volume up too loud, the sound will get distorted. Every radio, amplifier, cd-player and walkman since 1930 has worked this way, why are we so keen on protecting the user from this now? I think the only thing we'll get is user frustration because Rockbox won't let them crank the volume up as loud as they want to. -- Björn
Re: Simplified and uniform volume handling - asking for opinions
Jens Arnold wrote: Now I am asking for opinions/ suggestions on this. I would really like to commit this... Gets my vote. Linus
Re: Simplified and uniform volume handling - asking for opinions
Jens Arnold wrote: Now I am asking for opinions/ suggestions on this. I would really like to commit this... This is more or less exactly what I've wanted all along, so thumbs up from me. Thom
RE: Simplified and uniform volume handling - asking for opinions
On Tue, 6 Dec 2005, Anton Oleynikov wrote: The whole point of me doing first patch was that second option. It was extensively discussed in the forum and now that seem to be eliminated, right? In the forum perhaps, but not a lot here. How come? Jens explained it pretty well in his mail, IMHO. And no matter what, it is always considered fine to improve whatever we did before. -- Daniel Stenberg -- http://www.rockbox.org/ -- http://daniel.haxx.se/
RE: Simplified and uniform volume handling - asking for opinions
On Tue, 6 Dec 2005, Anton Oleynikov wrote: And no matter what, it is always considered fine to improve whatever we did before. Improve - yes, but completely remove what I've just done after not even speak up when asked - its another thing :) But he mailed here now and we're debating it atm. He hasn't committed anything yet. Feel free to argue for your viewpoint. There's no point in debating why the debate was lacking or made differently before. AFAICS, we're pretty united supporting his approach. -- Daniel Stenberg -- http://www.rockbox.org/ -- http://daniel.haxx.se/
Re: Simplified and uniform volume handling - asking for opinions
Anton Oleynikov wrote: The whole point of my patch was that user finally have intelligent bass/volume control that allow him to compare sound directly to original iRiver's firmware This is absolutely irrelevant IMHO. We couldn't care less about the original firmware. Linus
Re: Simplified and uniform volume handling - asking for opinions
On Tue, 6 Dec 2005, Michael E. DiFebbo wrote: I also believe that having a prevent clipping function similar to what Anton developed is beneficial to Rockbox, particularly with respect to making it more accessible to less sophisticated users. All the discussions that have been held on this topic, that I've read, have more or less stated that people have not understood or liked the previous concept used by Rockbox, with some stating that they'd prefer the original iriver fw method. The approach Jens suggested has not been widely discussed or tested. we also retain at least the portion of Anton's prevent clipping function that scales back bass boost to prevent clipping. Yes, we might have to. But we've had Jens' system for the Archos models for years without needing a prevent clipping option so I think it is a fair idea to go without that option to start with. People are in fact used to stereo equipments etc that clip when you drive everything to too high levels. 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 desirable then Jens' approach because Anton's approach leads to undesirable option bloat. That's only one reason. There are more reasons, including: there are too much magic happenining under the hood and that the options are very hard to understand/differentiate. The premise underlying these arguments is that Rockbox already has too many options and that adding more makes it unapproachable to new users or overly complex.* I disagree with this premise for several reasons. The ground rule, that many of us core devs are sticking to, is that adding options is a necessary evil that you avoid as far as possible. 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 jukebox is about: the users' experience in listening to music. It is abundantly clear that the handing of volume and clipping is important to the Rockbox user base. I disagree. It is not clear. It is clear that the previous approach surprised a lot of previous iriver-firmware users. 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, understandable and without bloat. I've never personally experienced the cap limit, be it the original or Rockbox's, not before not now. I don't understand why there is such reluctance to implement a configurable option with respect to clipping prevention. Because if we can work out a system without an added option, that is an even better approach. There are many other Rockbox functions that have more numerous and more complex options. That is not a good argument. Just because we have been sloppy or done mistakes in the past is not a good reason for us to do them again. The peak meter alone, for example, has SIX different options. The LCD has NINE different options. The crossfade function has six different options I would say that each of these are example of option-bloats that we should address and cut down on. But it isn't easy to remove or cut down what has already gone into Rockbox as there's a wild user base that likes every part you'd try to change. It is _a lot_ easier to break and address things _before_ they go in in the first place. And in fact, if we had not been practising the More Options Are Evil philosophy we'd have a *bazillion* more options than we have today. It doesn't seem unreasonable for users to have at least ONE option (ON or OFF) with respect to clipping prevention. ... nope, and there is no major resistance against such an option. Just a mild Do we really need it? And a How exactly would such an option work? And a Such an option *really* should be user-visible when in effect and how would that work when the apps don't have detailed info about the DAC? etc 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 and I firmly believe: 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 way that iriver does it. I agree. Rockbox is a lot more than an iriver firmware and we do not mimic iriver's behaviour. We should do what we consider is The Right Thing in any given situation. -- Daniel Stenberg -- http://www.rockbox.org/ -- http://daniel.haxx.se/
