On Tue, 26.05.09 21:25, Jud Craft (craftjml at gmail.com) wrote: > > So, reading these as linear factors. If X is 0.75 and Y is 0.8, then, > > yes, the virtual sink volume and hence the hw volume control is > > configured to 0.8, which is then shown in the UI on the volume slider > > of the sink. As I said the internally applied volume for stream B will > > then be 1.0, let's call that Y'. The internally applied volume X' for > > stream A will be X/Y: > > > > The final output volume of B will be Y' * Y = 1.0 * Y = Y = .8 > > > > The final output volume of A will be X' * X = (X/Y) * Y = X = .75 > > > > Which is exactly what was requested. > > > > if this is not clear to you, please read my last mail again. > > > > That does make sense. But you missed a part of my example -- I don't > want my system playing at full volume. I want it playing at 80% > (whatever that means -- let Pulse and Vista figure that out), and I > want A playing at 75% of that, and B playing at 80% of that. He, then you don't want the flat vol logic. But really, *why* do you want this? Why do you want your highest stream volume considerably lower than the device volume? That 20% headroom is simply something you lose then. Your sound card has a 16 bit DAC. But that way you use it as 15 bit dac only. > Serious. There was only one way to scale volume values to me. I > assumed that even in non-flat volume mode, Pulse behaved the same way > as Vista. I just figured that Vista had the stupidity to scale all of > my volume meters relative to the master volume meter, just to make me > think extra hard. You know, this sounds more like a problem of "didn't use to be like this, must be bad" than serious cricism. Lennart -- Lennart Poettering Red Hat, Inc. lennart [at] poettering [dot] net http://0pointer.net/lennart/ GnuPG 0x1A015CC4
