On Sat, 14 May 2011 17:55:06 +0200
Alexandre Ratchov wrote:
> On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 06:26:57PM +0300, Sviatoslav Chagaev wrote:
> >
> > Then the only thing that remains -- is to add clipping in mix_badd().
>
> Yes, if the other diff goes in, handling clipping makes sense.
>
> > This will giv
On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 06:26:57PM +0300, Sviatoslav Chagaev wrote:
>
> Then the only thing that remains -- is to add clipping in mix_badd().
Yes, if the other diff goes in, handling clipping makes sense.
> This will give aucat all the bits and pieces to meet the requirements
> of all kinds of u
On Fri, 13 May 2011 12:39:43 +0200
Alexandre Ratchov wrote:
> On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 12:36:43AM +0300, Sviatoslav Chagaev wrote:
> > > >
> > > > So, why is what I'm proposing better than what currently exists:
> > > >
> > > > * Resembles how sound behaves in real world more closely;
> > > > *
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 12:36:43AM +0300, Sviatoslav Chagaev wrote:
> > >
> > > So, why is what I'm proposing better than what currently exists:
> > >
> > > * Resembles how sound behaves in real world more closely;
> > > * Doesn't violate the principle of least surprise;
> > > * No more annoying
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 12:37:15AM +0300, Sviatoslav Chagaev wrote:
>
> My impression is that the opposite is true on tech@: if you don't have
> a diff -- it's just empty, useless talk and you shouldn't post if you
> don't have a diff.
> Besides, looking from an ordinary Joe User viewpoint, I don'
On Wed, 11 May 2011 09:40:16 +0200
Alexandre Ratchov wrote:
> On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 02:50:36AM +0300, Sviatoslav Chagaev wrote:
> > I'm sitting at work, listening to music, debugging a web-application
> > with JavaScript alert()s. Each time an alert window pops up, the
> > browser plays a sound
On Wed, 11 May 2011 19:58:56 +
Jacob Meuser wrote:
> On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 09:45:05AM +0300, Sviatoslav Chagaev wrote:
> > On Wed, 11 May 2011 03:35:56 +
> > Jacob Meuser wrote:
> >
> > > clipping is better than normalizing? really?
> >
> > Clipping might describe something like val
On Wed, 11 May 2011 13:25:47 +0200
Alexandre Ratchov wrote:
> On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 09:45:05AM +0300, Sviatoslav Chagaev wrote:
> > On Wed, 11 May 2011 03:35:56 +
> > Jacob Meuser wrote:
> >
> > > clipping is better than normalizing? really?
> >
> > Clipping might describe something lik
On Wed, 11 May 2011 13:07:12 +0200
Alexandre Ratchov wrote:
> On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 02:50:36AM +0300, Sviatoslav Chagaev wrote:
> >
>
> below are few comments about the diff itself
>
> > Index: aparams.h
> > ===
> > RCS file: /Op
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 09:45:05AM +0300, Sviatoslav Chagaev wrote:
> On Wed, 11 May 2011 03:35:56 +
> Jacob Meuser wrote:
>
> > clipping is better than normalizing? really?
>
> Clipping might describe something like value&0xff, so no, not
> clipping, saturating addition.
> > > + if (s
On 05/11/11 02:29, Marco Peereboom wrote:
> I think this is great. I find our current code odd and I agree this is
> what one expects.
+1
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 09:45:05AM +0300, Sviatoslav Chagaev wrote:
> On Wed, 11 May 2011 03:35:56 +
> Jacob Meuser wrote:
>
> > clipping is better than normalizing? really?
>
> Clipping might describe something like value&0xff, so no, not
> clipping, saturating addition.
> Try it and s
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 02:50:36AM +0300, Sviatoslav Chagaev wrote:
>
below are few comments about the diff itself
> Index: aparams.h
> ===
> RCS file: /OpenBSD/src/usr.bin/aucat/aparams.h,v
> retrieving revision 1.11
> diff -u -r1.1
On Wed May 11 2011 06:10:03 AM EDT, Brad wrote:
oops. looks like my phone sent the empty reply when I put it back in my pocket
after reading this.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
On Tue May 10 2011 11:35:56 PM EDT, Jacob Meuser
wrote:
> clipping is better than normalizing?B really?
>
> what about the case where aucat is used for offline mixing?
>
> like the mixerctl change, you are taking away things that exist
> for good reason, because it makes *your* situation bet
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 02:50:36AM +0300, Sviatoslav Chagaev wrote:
> I'm sitting at work, listening to music, debugging a web-application
> with JavaScript alert()s. Each time an alert window pops up, the
> browser plays a sound. For a brief moment, the volume drops twicefold
> then goes back to n
On Wed, 11 May 2011 03:35:56 +
Jacob Meuser wrote:
> clipping is better than normalizing? really?
Clipping might describe something like value&0xff, so no, not
clipping, saturating addition.
Try it and see for yourself.
>
> what about the case where aucat is used for offline mixing?
>
clipping is better than normalizing? really?
what about the case where aucat is used for offline mixing?
like the mixerctl change, you are taking away things that exist
for good reason, because it makes *your* situation better in *your*
opinion, when you can (mostly) have what you want with the
I think this is great. I find our current code odd and I agree this is
what one expects.
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 02:50:36AM +0300, Sviatoslav Chagaev wrote:
> I'm sitting at work, listening to music, debugging a web-application
> with JavaScript alert()s. Each time an alert window pops up, the
>
I'm sitting at work, listening to music, debugging a web-application
with JavaScript alert()s. Each time an alert window pops up, the
browser plays a sound. For a brief moment, the volume drops twicefold
then goes back to normal. This is annoying and doesn't make sense.
In real life, if you are su
20 matches
Mail list logo
