Bugzilla – Bug 2483
support pitch command, deprecate mixer pitch
Last modified: 2011-11-06 23:24:08 UTC
pitch is not a mixer function in any normal definition of a mixer, and no one looking for a pitch control would consider looking there. Add a pitch command to the CLI and to the other places that take command input, with the same semantics as the mixer pitch command (in other words, support it both with and without the word "mixer" in there). Deprecate the usage "mixer pitch" and document it as such so people will know now to use it in future.
Hm, the "mixer" commands are about changing the quality of the audio, and is where volume, bass, treble are implemented. Why would you need to move pitch out of that set and change the API? What benefit to the user would this provide?
A mixer is a specific piece of equipment. If a person knows what a mixer is, they won't look for pitch correction there. If a person doesn't know what a mixer is, it doesn't matter if you make the change I'm suggesting.
Any decision for 6.5?
Let me make one more impassioned pitch for this one, and then if no one sees my point, I'll give up. This is not a big deal feature. It's a confusion and cleanlyness issue. To me, a pitch control is fundamentally different than anything you do with a mixer. A mixer takes input audio signals and modifies them, in ways that are all post-sound-generation. If you will, the mixer can be at the other end of a long rca cable. It's like a pre-amp. Ever seen a pre-amp with pitch controls? The pitch control, in a record player (anyone remember vinyl?), a tape player or a CD player, actually changes the time base of the fundamental machinery generating the sound. In the older technologies, it actually changed a motor speed, in CDs it changes the time base of the clock circuit used to clock the sound data out of the unit. The point is, in almost all technologies, pitch is a fundamental feature of the sound generation equipment, not of a post-process. I understand that, in the all-in-one chip that was the heart of the SB1, this was blurred because it was just another input to the chip, but fundamentally it was fiddling with the time base of the chip (which is why it doesn't work over 110%) rather than what the mixer functions were doing. Looked at another way, when implementing this in the SB2/3, will pitch be post-sound-generation (i.e. mixer) function, or will it be involved in clock timing way back during sound generation. To me, this is the difference and the dividing line between a mixer function and a player function. This only matters because, as new people come to use the CLI (or other command like functions), they will be confused, as I was, by a mixer function that everyone who has ever used a mixer will know is not. I don't care if you never depricate or discontinue the mixer pitch function, just add pitch as a peer (in the hierarchy) of mixer. Whew! It's just putting (and naming) the functions where people with audio experience will expect them. I hope this clarifies what I was asking for.
Synonyms add complexity to notification filters and therefore are not welcomed. I am deprecating them for 6.5 as much as I possibly can. Please don't make me add a new one :-)
Dean doesn't work here any more :)
Unassigned bugs cannot have a priority.