https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=508170

--- Comment #2 from pallaswept <[email protected]> ---
(In reply to Nate Graham from comment #1)
> Would there be any reason not to do this, I wonder?

It seems pretty safe to me, but I welcome any input.

I've been chewing on this one a lot because you know how it is, there's always
that one unexpected use-case ...

The hypothetical concern is that a user wants to press mute and mute a virtual
device. I can think of several use-cases where a person might be using a
virtual device as an input (mic) in their app, but in nearly every example that
comes to mind, there's a real mic at the end of it all, which would be muted by
the widget, so the result would be the intended one (mute my mics).

I imagined that if a person were playing background noise or karaoke backing,
and mixing it with their mic through a virtual node, if they pressed mute, the
mic would mute as expected, and the background noise/karaoke backing would keep
going. That one feels like I'm really stretching my imagination honestly.

One potential issue I thought of is where the root source of the audio is not a
real device, but an application. Like say a person uses some kind of voice
synthesis like TTS (eg for a11y or vtubers). 

Since that's an application, it wouldn't be muted by the mic widget anyway, but
if they were using a virtual device to route that app as a 'microphone' into
other apps, and consequently provide them a source node; that is currently
muted if it is the default device, but wouldn't be muted in this concept
because it's virtual.

However, they could avoid this, by marking that virtual device as real (ie
node.virtual=false) and I doubt that would be a challenge for anyone who had
already configured it to that point (they would just be adding this one
property to the several they had already set). (and they'll also get volume
controls for it in the widget/pavucontrol/etc so that's preferable anyway) (and
they probably need to do it anyway so apps will even see it, so chances are
they already have)

That last one is honestly the only vaguely legit issue that I could imagine. It
doesn't seem severe thanks to the easy fix/prevention probably already should
be in place, but I mention it anyway just to be thorough. I'll keep mulling it
over and see if I can think of anything else but that's all for now.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.

Reply via email to