[pulseaudio-discuss] RFC: New volume functionality for PulseAudio
arun at accosted.net
Tue Feb 18 07:34:46 PST 2014
On 17 February 2014 16:16, Tanu Kaskinen <tanu.kaskinen at linux.intel.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-02-17 at 16:06 +0530, Arun Raghavan wrote:
>> (Resend including list as well)
>> On 17 Feb 2014 09:30, "Arun Raghavan" <arun at accosted.net> wrote:
>> > On 16 February 2014 16:33, Tanu Kaskinen <tanu.kaskinen at linux.intel.com>
>> > wrote:
>> > [...]
>> > > Yes, I can and I will start the implementation from the volume control
>> > > objects, but let's not stop the discussion about volume classes / audio
>> > > groups, because I will need to implement a client API for working with
>> > > volume classes anyway. The sooner I know how to do it, the better.
>> > We have 3 orthogonal issues here:
>> > 1. Addition of volume control objects / information to allow balance
>> > to be represented adequately
> These two things are orthogonal too. The point of volume control objects
> isn't that they allow better balance representation. The balance thing
> is involved only because if we introduce volume control objects anyway,
> it's an opportunity to switch to a better balance representation.
Then I guess this brings me back to the original question of what
problem the volume control objects actually solve right now.
More information about the pulseaudio-discuss