Lennart wrote: > > Now, I must admit that this all is a bit hard to grasp. And thus not > exactly the definition of easy to use. We had a couple of discussions on > this very ML about this. So far noone came up with a way to fix this in > a way that would be completely convincing. I can't claim to grasp it, but... > I think the core problem is that it is impossible to figure out what the > user actually wants. When he increases a volume of a stream he might A) > want it a bit louder then whatever else is currently playing and would > be pissed off if the other stream would get louder at the same time or > B) want it a bit louder because everything that's playing is just too > silent and he would be pissed off if only one stream would get louder > and not all. It seems to me that these problems would go away if you accept that boost/compression should not be a function of volume. (Use a seperate module!) If PA can't satisfy audiophiles, then PA will not earn a great reputation with the layman who trusts experts either. Every sensible volume control I can think of is conceptually an attenuator, i.e. zero decibels at maximum (even if it is implemented as amplifier gain control internally). That's why a slider is appropriate as a GUI element here. (VLC player notwithstanding. I carefully leave it at 100% and never touch it. The 400% upper bound is both non-intuitive, arbitrary and likely to distort.) So, if as you claim, the user "might A) want it a bit louder then whatever else is currently playing and would be pissed off if the other stream would get louder at the same time", I think that user has probably never used a volume control or mixer (i.e. an attenuator). It doesn't make sense (in my mind) to optimise for this unusual situation. Finn
