On 17 February 2014 23:04, Alexander E. Patrakov <patrakov at gmail.com> wrote: [...] > A sensible model has been demonstrated (as a replacement of the current > logic) that doesn't fit into those assumptions. E.g. (here I am deliberately > trying to "misinterpret" and/or augment the earlier e-mails by Tanu, just to > see if this modification breaks any of his own assumptions): > > A. For each sink, there are two volumes: "System" and "Entertainment". None > of them can be said to be the system's main volume. An attempt to read or > adjust the sink's volume via legacy tools follows the usual flat-volume > logic and changes both. I see these falling under volume classes, rather than multiple controls for each device. > B. These volumes exist and are adjustable via new tools even if nothing is > playing through that sink. I don't follow - what volumes are you talking about here? > C. Any stream playing through a sink does not have an > independently-adjustable volume. It effectively assumes one of the "System" > or "Entertainment" volumes belonging to the sink, depending on its media > role. An attempt to read or change the stream volume via legacy interfaces > reads or adjusts one of the "System" or "Entertainment" volumes belonging to > the sink, as appropriate. Again, this is to do with volume classes and not volumes being represented as objects on the server. I hope the difference I'm trying to draw between the two is clear? -- Arun
