[MPlayer-dev-eng] [PATCH] forceable software volume control

[The Wanderer]

Oded Shimon wrote:

> On Friday 05 November 2004 12:37, The Wanderer wrote:
> 
>> Well, I had done 'cvs -z3 update -dPA' immediately before trying to
>> apply; also, 'cvs -z3 diff -u mixer.c' finds no differences. It
>> still fails, though - checked just moments ago.
> 
> You're supposed to use
> cvs -z3 diff -u -r HEAD mixer.c
> 
> otherwise CVS compares with your revision, which is always up to date
> (cause you're comparing it with itself...), unless you modify
> manually.

No, I've used the command I gave more than once in the past to compare
files against CVS (including for creation of patches), and it's worked
just fine. I've never had to specify a revision with MPlayer, and would
be considerably surprised if it were suddenly necessary now.

Just tested again, with a file I've modified myself towards the next
patches in the printf --> mp_msg conversion, and the command I quoted
above works just fine.

Oh, wait - did you mean "modify manually" as in "edit by hand rather
than by applying a patch"? If so, then you misinterpreted my comment
above; "no differences" is *without* having applied the patch. (Also,
comparing against another local source tree which is identical to CVS
likewise reports no changes.)

> also,
> cvs -z3  update -C
> is slightly better, assuming you didn't make any valuable changes..
> (it overrides your modified files, otherwise they are kept even if
> there is a new version)

Yes, and if there are no conflicts between any changes I made and the
ones in the updated version, I want to keep my changes. If there are
conflicts, then the file winds up in a non-compilable state, and I go in
and make whatever edits are necessary to bring it into shape. (Usually
that consists of removing the record of my own changes, but sometimes I
want to either keep them anyway or combine them with the updated code.)

>> If I move to adjust volume upwards and see that I'm already within
>> a smidge of the maximum, I feel like something's wrong, because
>> things should not assume "high volume" by default; if I move to
>> adjust the volume downwards and I see the same thing, I get
>> annoyed, because it feels as if the reason the thing was too loud
>> is because the default is too high.
> 
> I'm just gonna throw in my 2 cents here and I think ~60 is a good
> default value...
> 
> Volume is not only made to correct downward, but also upward... If a
> movie is too low volume, I'd like the ability to turn it up... and
> down if its too high...

The counter-argument to that, which he made recently on the -users list,
is that raising the volume by more than about 10% causes extremely
audible artifacting. I don't know if that's true - I certainly don't
remember encountering such artifacting myself in all cases before
reaching *much* higher volumes - but if so it does present a fairly good
case for not going past that range by default.



On a complete tangent, is there any particular reason why your posts
specify the use of a Hebrew encoding scheme (ISO-8859-8-I)? I expect
that sort of thing in cases where the text contains non-ASCII characters
(i.e., posts with Japanese characters and the like, which I see not
infrequently), but since you have so far been posting entirely in the
Roman alphabet I'm wondering if there's something going on.

(For those who might wonder, it makes any difference to me because when
displaying most non-ASCII character sets my mail reader uses a larger,
slightly different - and IMO less attractive - font. I can specify
"display as ASCII" and the post appears in the default font just as
normal, but it's annoying to have to re-set that every time I open one
of his posts.)

-- 
       The Wanderer

Warning: Simply because I argue an issue does not mean I agree with any
side of it.

A government exists to serve its citizens, not to control them.