what do you want on the recording screen?

[linuxstb]

Why display the "Time:" and "File:" labels at all?  Isn't it obvious what they are?  If you remove at least the File: label, then the filename could easily be made to scroll.  Even with the label, the filename could scroll using a viewport.

[Benway]

Would it be possible to have some flashing sybol to indicate that the unit is actually recording? I think this would be extremely helpful as the increasing of the filesize is just too hard to see with this tiny font.

[GodEater]

Isn't that what the peakmeters do?

Or do they run even when the unit isn't recording ?

(Spot the recording novice...)

[LurkAzusa]

The peakmeters run in pre-recording mode.  I've missed many a recording because I couldn't see the filename (too small a font).  A flashing recording symbol or larger font would be nice. (H340)

[jhMikeS]

I had the idea of actually separating the recording functionality such as control, AGC, etc. from the display code so that various pages of information could be displayed and even custom screens easily added (debugging, custom builds, etc.) without getting in the way of control of the low-level recording code.

It wouldn't need multiple threads but just a layered structure with display code called by functional code similarly to how peakmeters function. State machine-based design is the way to go to make that simple.

Just my $.02 to have maximized flexibility.

[Davide-NYC]

Why display the "Time:" and "File:" labels at all?  Isn't it obvious what they are?  If you remove at least the File: label, then the filename could easily be made to scroll.  Even with the label, the filename could scroll using a viewport.

All valid points and I totally agree, be rid of the labels. I certainly don't need them.    Note that this does not solve the SMALL DISPLAY 2-Line constraint problem mentioned in my previous post in which I propose the "Joystick_UP toggle FileSize/FileName" solution.

Would it be possible to have some flashing sybol to indicate that the unit is actually recording? I think this would be extremely helpful as the increasing of the filesize is just too hard to see with this tiny font.

I totally agree that the system font is too small and that it's difficult to see what's going on in the WRS.  To alleviate that I have proposed two things: 1) the two line high "Big Status Icon" (maybe even scalable?) and 2) user selectable fonts.  But I would like to personally vote against anything that *flashes* unnecessarily.

[Benway]

[/quote]

But I would like to personally vote against anything that *flashes* unnecessarily.

[/quote]

A flashing red dot or a red light are universally used in anything that involves recording so that anyone immediately know what's going on. I would say this symbol is almost as well known as the "stop" sign on the roads. Why not use something that's this obvious?

[Llorean]

Remember, whatever you use should translate to monochrome screens equally well. So the "dot" should be just as obvious in black.

[Benway]

Remember, whatever you use should translate to monochrome screens equally well. So the "dot" should be just as obvious in black.

Right, I forgot about monochrome screens. But a flashing black dot would still be pretty obvious to me.

[Llorean]

I'm not sure how much more obvious that could be than simply whether time was moving or not.

[Davide-NYC]

Unless I'm going totally senile (which is possible)... Flashing to me always meant "pause".  Red always meant recording.   FWIW: I was a recording engineer for four years and owned my own little recording studio for 18 months out of that stretch.

I originally thought that the pause icon could flash not the recording icon. Then a big dot (red on color targets) would stay steady during recording.

The flashing lights I believe are a remnant of the record heads being engaged to the tape but the tape not rolling. (I am really showing my age here.)

[JdGordon]

I had the idea of actually separating the recording functionality such as control, AGC, etc. from the display code so that various pages of information could be displayed and even custom screens easily added (debugging, custom builds, etc.) without getting in the way of control of the low-level recording code.

It wouldn't need multiple threads but just a layered structure with display code called by functional code similarly to how peakmeters function. State machine-based design is the way to go to make that simple.

Just my $.02 to have maximized flexibility.

please please please do this... would make it much easier.. (atm my tree has half the recording screen main loop #if 0'd and so I have no idea how much of recording is broken.
I wont have any time over the weekend for this, so ill post a patch a bit later (as long as everyone undertsands it not meant to go in any builds... just to get others working on it also...

[jhMikeS]

I need to do some thinking about this before just trying to code but I can spell-out the division of labor that would happen on one thread (or the audio thread could be the recording engine control thread and be an audio "mode").

1) Basic functionality - Runs the show

Control of recording engine
Setting of signal paths
File splitting
AGC
Keeper of statistics (bytes recorded, time)
Maybe send update hints to 2) such as "the gain changed".

2) UI functionality - doesn't actually change anything in 1) itself - simple show/input layer.

Key Input (and sending appropriate change directives back to 1) )
Peakmeter drawing
Drawing statisics, settings, filename, etc.

Layer 2 can then be completely swapped with something else at any time and all essential functionality will continue to run.

[simo7]

I think a revision to the recording screen is a superb idea. I would personally prefer a minimalist approach, L + R gain control, Volume Level, Filename and Timecode.
Something like the Microtrack interface would be cool!

http://www.m-audio.com/images/global/media_hqpics/microtrack2-front.jpg

[zajacattack]

Why not create a system so that people can use tags to make the recording screen look however they want, just like the WPS system?