Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Use decibel scaling for volume control #6490

Open
wants to merge 10 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Use decibel scaling for volume control #6490

Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
10 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
f0a489f
Use volume scaling
myQwil Jan 29, 2024
ef5a892
Display volume in decibel format
myQwil Jan 13, 2025
41ec0a8
Use Math.Log(10) instead of the numeric literal
myQwil Jan 13, 2025
38e105d
Further simplify the assigning of `k`
myQwil Jan 13, 2025
2b61198
Rename `VolumeScaler` to `BindableVolume`
myQwil Jan 13, 2025
998f687
Bring back `ln_ten` as a numeric literal
myQwil Jan 13, 2025
370a49c
Make BindableVolume a sealed class
myQwil Jan 13, 2025
590d1d0
Remove BindableVolume.Value
myQwil Jan 13, 2025
8ea57e8
Make `k` a static readonly so we can use Math.Log(10)
myQwil Jan 14, 2025
844989f
Rename `Real/Scaled` to `Linear/Decibel`
myQwil Jan 14, 2025
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
3 changes: 1 addition & 2 deletions osu.Framework/Audio/VolumeScaler.cs
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -11,8 +11,7 @@ public class VolumeScaler
public const double MIN = -60;
public const double STEP = 0.5;

private static readonly double ln_ten = Math.Log(10);
private const double k = ln_ten / 20;
private const double k = Math.Log(10) / 20;
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

constant declarations must use compile-time constants on the rhs of the assignment. this can't work with const, it must be static readonly. are you even compiling this code?

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

My bad

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I kinda still want k to be const. I guess that's why I went with the numeric literal to begin with.

const will get embedded into the IL code wherever it's used, whereas static readonly requires a memory lookup each time it's accessed.

Copy link
Collaborator

@bdach bdach Jan 13, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

please actually profile this and get back to me. i am 99% confident this will not be measurable. i prefer non-obfuscated code over pedantically marginal performance 'gains'.

Copy link
Author

@myQwil myQwil Jan 13, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If you like, I can change the name of the variable from ln_ten to something that's more readable.

But if the code is decently readable either way, why use the slower version, regardless of how pedantically marginal the difference may be?

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

there is no solution with the const that i would consider more readable than just writing out what the number is

but i also have no time nor patience to continue this discussion

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Make is static readonly or close the PR.

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Certainly. I apologize if I came across as confrontational. I'm just trying to have a discussion about your coding philosophies and the reasons behind them.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It's pretty simple: storing one value to memory that is going to take up 8 bytes is not a concern and shouldn't lead to discussion. By using it we don't have to figure out what a random constant decimal number is and check whether it's correct.

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think I see what you're saying. I figured if I just gave the variable a good enough name, describing what it's supposed to represent, then everything would be fine, but at the end of the day, there's still this big ugly numeric literal sitting in the middle of the code and it's a bit unsightly.


public readonly BindableNumber<double> Real;
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Maybe call these Linear and Logarithmic?

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

this "real" one looks like it should not be externally mutable. should either be IBindableNumber<double>, or if you're gonna keep it mutable, it should be synced both ways (changing "real" should also change "scaled")

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

this "real" one looks like it should not be externally mutable

I was hoping it would remain mutable so that we aren't deciding on a developers' behalf which they choose to use. Both may have valid use cases, depending on how you're audio engineeringing.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

sure, as long as it's not possible to break the instances of this into complete nonsense by setting both to random values and putting it in a completely invalid state

public readonly BindableNumber<double> Scaled = new BindableNumber<double>(1)
Expand Down