Discussion: Pros & Cons of a potential WPS Tag Feature Request

[[Saint]]

I'm wanting to gauge peoples response to this idea in this forum first (since it solely relates to the WPS and I believe the implementation of this feature may make it easier to code for the WPS in the future), to discuss it's pros and cons.....or to see if anyone else thinks it may be a useful feature to implement.

Currently the "%pv" Tag references the volume according to a scale based on dB, which includes (on some players) a value that is >100% (0dB), and that dB scale may vary considerably between different DAP's (On some players mute is -74db, on others it's  -54dB, some players will go above 0dB to +6db, some will not).

My proposal is the implementation of a new tag that would be *SIMILAR* to the %pv tag but would display the volume in a percentile range of 0% (mute) to 100% (the maximum volume of the target DAP) as this range would never change although the increments may be represented as slightly smaller/larger depending on the dB range of the target DAP.


It should be something like:

%*N*<0%|10%|20%|30%|40%|50%|60%|70%|80%|90%|100%>

Or Even

%*N*<0%|5%|10152025/etc./85%|90%|95%|100%>

Or...If it was to be as accurate as possible, and why not right?

%*N*<0%|1%|2%|3%|4%|5%/etc./95%|96%|97%|98%|99%|100%>

Where "*N*" is whatever value the Tag is assigned were it to be implemented.


I believe this tag (if implemented) would make it easier to display images conditionally that more accurately represent the volume as a percentage from "absolute silence" to "as loud as the target player can possibly go", I also believe this tag (if implemented) would make it easier for WPS Authors to write code that works on multiple targets.
I'm in no way saying that the %pv tag should be abandoned/disregarded...as it's obviously a feature that many people find useful to display on the WPS.

However, the current %pv tag makes it difficult (or impossible) to truly accurately represent the volume *VISUALLY* ie. a Bitmap Strip that represents a sliding scale or similar effect as the %pv tag is based on dB where 0dB is 100% (or full volume), and as I've already said, some players have a dB range that exceeds 0dB (and the %pv Tag does accommodate for this) but I believe the implementation of this new tag idea would make it a lot easier for WPS Authors to display the volume in a format that they are more familiar with (as not many people are as familiar with dB as they are say, the minimum and maximum levels of sound the player can produce), or at least have the *option* to be able to do so.

The battery level for instance can be displayed in both a voltage remaining *and* a percentile range from 0-100%, I was reasonably surprised to find out that the volume couldn't be displayed in the same way.

I found another thread in this forum (posted by Logg http://forums.rockbox.org/index.php?action=profile;u=24292) that has a similar theme/topic to this one, and in particular the quote:

If there's a valid use for it, it might deserve a real tag, but nobody's really provided one yet. You said it's more useful for you. Do you just mean "more aesthetic to me" or do you find an actual use for it?

Was of interest to me.

So, this is My attempt to launch a discussion of the Pros & Cons of implementing this new tag (or NOT implementing it) so that a "valid use" for this tag possibly be found/recognised by others that author WPS code.

So *PLEASE* if this is of any interest to You at all, or if You think this is a feature that You (like Myself) would indeed find easier/more useful/more aesthetic....whatever, any interest at all, please post a reply here so I can attempt to gauge whether or not it would be worthwhile submitting this as a "New Feature Request".



Sincerely,
[St.]

[Llorean]

Please don't post new feature ideas outside of the "Feature Ideas" section.

Meanwhile, there's nowhere to submit feature "requests" so you don't need to gauge anything. Put it up as an idea where it belongs (or get a mod to move this post, which is preferable) in the feature ideas forum, and hope someone implements it.

But be aware - %pv already allows you to display volume as percentage in the safest way possible (having a unique value for mute, a unique value for line level, and a unique value for 'levels you shouldn't use') so there's really no benefit to intentionally *hiding* from users when they get past line level.

Percentage volume was specifically removed and replaced with the db scale because it provides meaningful information. and the %pv tag explicitly is percentage volume. It's (mute)|(list of percentage images)|(100%)|(>100%).

This code already works on multiple targets, and you don't need to know the db range of the target to use it. Meanwhile a percentage that ignores the possibility of >0db values *won't* work safely on multiple targets because realistically the players should be capped at 0db to provide protection from clipping if you aren't going to notify users that it's possible to go past this level.

Basically, it sounds like you don't understand what is actually being represented by these numbers.

It's perfectly possible to say, use images that represent 10% steps for volume already and have it work reliably cross-target. All you need to do is be sure to also include an image for "Clipping" as well.

Even if you were using percentages you'd still want a separate mute image and a separate "full" image so that it didn't show "Full" at 92%.

So all you're really requesting is "remove the clipping image" and this makes no sense.

[[Saint]]

Llorean,


I think You may have misinterpreted the post?

I'm by no means asking for separate values for mute / clipping, the useability of the tag that I'm proposing would just have those values as 0% and 100% respectively.

Currently the in %pv tag "full volume" (which I and possibly others would perceive to be the DAP's maximum volume) is represented by 0dB, and some players (like My Nanos) are able to exceed "full volume" to a value of +6db which is (in the scale used currently) >100%

When it comes to displaying this graphically...it doesn't really work, as one would expect (as I *did* and many people still do) that "full volume" would indeed be the "target DAP's *maximum volume*" instead of a value that (when compared to the volume in a percentile is arbitrary) can be potentially exceeded.

Irrespective of the fact that it is generally unwise to exceed 0db as clipping can occur, even if the volume were to be represented as a total percentile people as still going to be aware of the fact that one end of the scale is total silence and the opposite end of the scale is incredibly loud and potentially damaging to hardware.

Personally, on My iPod Nano at least I can't tolerate the volume being above 75% or so in My "'imaginary' percentile scale. it's literally too loud to listen to WAY before it gets a chance to clip or distort,

However,

I'd like to know that 100% "full volume" *actually* represented 100% of the "target DAP's maximum volume"


Does this make any more sense to You? Or do You just outright disagree with the idea completely?

Others may not, and that is what I'm interested in finding out.



Sincerely,
[St.]




PS:

I don't want this to be conveyed in any way as argumentative as it is not (at least deliberately), rather as an effort on My part to clarify My intent.

[JdGordon]

your reasoning for wanting this makes no sense... if you want a precise reprsentation of the volume then you dont want to use a graphic which only has 10 steps... and we've already told you about 6 times how to get a close enough approximation with the current %pv token.

[Llorean]

Why is it important (what usefulness is gained?) for 100% to represent the maximum possible volume, rather than the maximum volume in the range unlikely to cause clipping?

Basically the way it works right now, if you take any player and set the volume to 0db you know what output level to expect. If you used your scale, and set every player to, say 95%, each player would be playing at a different level. Some would be clipping, others would not, some might even just land on line level.

It hides information from the user. What does the user gain from this other than a "simplification" that can already be accomplished? Do you find the default cabbie WPS confusing in its volume display?

[AlexP]

I agree with Llorean and JdGordon.

[seani]

I use the db scale and text only displays, but I find his request / suggestion perfectly consistent.

He doesn't want to use a numeric scale, he wants to use an arbitrary graphical representation of whatever kind, scaled from 0 - 100% over the maximum volume range of the player, but not limited to the current 10+ step resolution.

There are only a few situations where a symbolic display of any kind is anything other than meaningless anyway, and not many more situations where seeing the db scale is any more useful.

For the majority of users in the majority of cases (speculation) the perceived volume is a function of your player, your headphones, your source material and your ears. It's no use pretending that rendering the figure as db is anything other than a way to make a subjective decision about the volume setting for a particular occasion.

People who need genuine consistency will understand the clipping and distortion issues and are unlikely to be the target audience.

For the record, yes I did find the volume display using Cabbie on my F40 counter-intuitive when I tried it. It takes 9 or 10 presses in the volume control before I see any feedback on the screen (or less if midway between two graphics). There's plenty of resolution for it to be smoother.

But that's taking a "cold" look at it. I don't use that WPS at all, nicely designed though it is.

[Llorean]

He doesn't want to use a numeric scale, he wants to use an arbitrary graphical representation of whatever kind, scaled from 0 - 100% over the maximum volume range of the player, but not limited to the current 10+ step resolution.

I think you've missed something. The minimum number of steps for the resolution is 4: Mute, a single step, 0db, >0db. The maximum number is arbitrary (the WPS designer's choice). The only thing he's suggesting is adjusting the scale so that instead of the arbitrary range being from 1% to 99% of the 'safe' (non-clipping) range, it goes from 0% to 100% of the unsafe range. This is less user friendly in just about every possible way.

For the majority of users in the majority of cases (speculation) the perceived volume is a function of your player, your headphones, your source material and your ears. It's no use pretending that rendering the figure as db is anything other than a way to make a subjective decision about the volume setting for a particular occasion.

db is a relative scale, so yes it's relative to the source material and the output power of your player. But there's no "pretending" going on. If two players are equally capable of handling the same load, two players set to -25db playing the same file should sound the same independent of what their total range is. Meanwhile 95% will almost never sound the same exactly because the range of players is so vastly different. But this isn't about "rendering db" in the first place - it's about the removal of the ">0db" part of the conditional (or the creation of an alternate conditional rather that treats that special case as part of the normal case).

For the record, yes I did find the volume display using Cabbie on my F40 counter-intuitive when I tried it. It takes 9 or 10 presses in the volume control before I see any feedback on the screen (or less if midway between two graphics). There's plenty of resolution for it to be smoother.

That won't be resolved at all by his feature idea here. The degree of smoothness can already be increased arbitrarily fine up to one pixel per db changed. My point in asking if it was counter-intuitive was specifically in regard to "does it not provide a visual representation of the range of the player in a manner a user can understand without knowing that it actually displays db"?

[soap]

He doesn't want to use a numeric scale, he wants to use an arbitrary graphical representation of whatever kind, scaled from 0 - 100% over the maximum volume range of the player, but not limited to the current 10+ step resolution.

I believe part of the disagreement here is this:
Some players go to >100% (+6 dB) and the proposed system appears to gain nothing over the current system except to hide this.  Calling +6db on my iPod "100%" (however it is represented graphically) is misleading to the end user of the WPS and confusing at best. 

"The target's maximum volume" is the wrong way to look at the problem, IMHO, as anything > 0dB is not comparable to that below.

[Llorean]

And from (minimum db) to (0db) is already covered by the %pv tag and can be divided up into arbitrarily sized percentage chunks already meaning the functionality being requested only adds the ability to easily hide the range above 0db, and would actually offer nothing new on players that max at 0db.

[seani]

Mea culpable on the functionality of %pv, I didn't look at the WPS docs, I think I found a link to an old IRC / forum discussion that indicated only 10 maximum steps were available up to 0db

So if I have it right, %pv automatically scales the volume range from -whatever db to 0db so that if, for instance, 5 images are specified, and the range is -70db to 0db on a player, the image changes on 14db boundaries; if the range is -60db to 0db and there are 12 images, the images change on 5db boundaries?

And the range >0db is represented by a single image, not scaled, and not otherwise available in any way to a WPS author?

Edited: spelling errors

[JdGordon]

yes... I'm thinking a nice compromise is adding a conditional for how far over 0 the volume is which would please almost everyone..

[Llorean]

The range above 0db is also available as actual numbers. It just can't be split into multiple images and you can't replace the numbers with imaginary numbers of your own choosing.

[seani]

The range above 0db is also available as actual numbers. It just can't be split into multiple images and you can't replace the numbers with imaginary numbers of your own choosing.

This is where we part company in our viewpoint I think.

As soon as you're displaying the volume as anything other than the db figure, whether it's a graphic or an arbitrary scale of your own devising, it's all imaginary, and all equally "useless" (if unaccountably popular).

If I understand correctly, past the 0db level I can press my volume button a further 6 times on the Gigabeat and there'll be no change in the volume display (confirmed with a play). Or, alternatively depending where I am, I can decrease the volume by 6 additional steps and I'll get no feedback , although in both cases the actual volume will change from various levels of ear-splitting.

My only feedback on the way down is to note that if I keep pressing the volume down button, eventually I may get a different image.

[Llorean]

This is true for *most* levels of volume. The volume image is only a relatively scant number of pixels wide, yet the range is quite significant. So yes, you could also say that for changing the volume level at almost any level of volume that "I have to press it X times before the display changes."

So what's the problem again?

At no point does the image give you any detailed feedback, and unless you use one of a relatively significant size it certainly doesn't give you more feedback than either your ears your your fingers. Even if the image were as large in pixels as the number of steps, you wouldn't be able to count the pixels to get an exact amount unless you had very, very good eyes. The main usefulness of it is that you can look at the image and get an approximate feeling of "loud" or "soft." The clipping image gives you the added bonus of "loud and almost certainly distorting."