Physical audio kill switches are a nice idea, but if you didn't wire them yourself, how do you know they aren't merely claimed to be physical but are actually just setting a flag in the operating system to ignore the physical input from the speaker?
We need physical audio kill switches
231–240 of 443 posts
Re: We need physical audio kill switches
#232Earlier quoted context omitted.
"It depends". Digital built-in microphones use DMIC, which aiui is a one-wire interface where the microphone just sends a delta-sigma bitstream. If you implement the switch through a multiplexer or logic gate this kills the signal 100 % essentially. Analog electrets can't be just shorted, because that causes a loud BANG when you switch due to the bias voltage, so you use a capacitor in series, which only shorts the A…
Why do you need to short it? Just move the wires from "on" to "high impedance" (similar to what a pair of scissors would do when applied to the cable).
The assumption is you want a click/pop-free mute. If you don't, then just SPDT the signal input to ground, problem solved. But if you do want it to be pop-free, you can't be disturbing the DC bias path (as explained above), so that isn't an option.
Re: We need physical audio kill switches
#233I let my spouse, who likes the novelty of a touchscreen, talk me into a Whirlpool oven a couple years ago that is controlled by touchscreen. I had no idea it was possible to hate an oven so much. The only saving grace is that the stovetop elements are still controlled by knobs.
My office (well, former office) used to have a touchscreen coffee maker. Why does a coffee maker even need a touchscreen? There are literally three options!
>Why does a coffee maker even need a touchscreen?
It's probably cheaper than physical buttons and can be used across multiple SKUs where each one would require it's own set of buttons otherwise.
Oh it can show you adverts too.
Objectively worse in every way to the end user than a nice set of buttons.
Re: We need physical audio kill switches
#234Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cooking on gas is much more pleasurable than most electric stoves. There's much more "feel" to control the heat
I use an induction stove and it is even more pleasurable than gas in terms of the speed of response of the pot. Response is literally instant because the pot is the source of heat, and not something external. They are also by far the safest since the hottest thing in the entire system is the bottom of the pot, which is usually at about 100-200 C depending on what you're cooking, which is usually not hot enough to sta…
I hate induction stoves (cooktops) because they seem to hit intermediate temperatures by cycling the power on and off rather than having a continuous intermediate setting.
(It's possible I've only ever encountered crappy induction cooktops...)
Re: We need physical audio kill switches
#235> I hit the mute button on my MacBook Pro Touchbar, and it took a solid two seconds for it to register. My ears were ringing throughout the whole call. This is unacceptable. Well-engineered mute buttons on keyboards shouldn’t need to go to software, they should immediately send a signal to the motherboard’s DAC—ideally on a separate wire or connection—to say terminate this signal. Then it’s less of a concern if it takes the OS a few seconds to react to the change, because our ears have been spared.
"Should not need to go to software?" I'm not sure.
I have a Yamaha AV receiver on my desk. The huge volume knob has the best user experience than any software-based solution, unlike menus or hotkeys, it's always in my reach and instantaneously responses to my inputs. It has smooth mechanical damping, giving a satisfying touch and feel. I can immediately turn the volume down in a second if there's misbehaving, non-normalized loud audio. I did it from time to time.
On the other hand, I clearly know it's software-driven. The knob is nothing but an user interface. It's an optical rotary encoder, not a real potentiometer. When the knob is turned, it chops a beam of light, and an optical sensor converts the optical pulse to a digital signal, which is then sent to a GPIO pin on the application processor in the AV receiver. The firmware on the application processor receives an IRQ, then commands the DAC via the system bus (could be I2C) to increase or decrease the volume in a 0.5 dB step. It's 100% software driven, not hardware driven. The software can fail, yet the software never let me down.
We can get another conclusion from this: Special-purpose computing is more reliable than general-purpose computing. The operating system handles everything, and has numerous failure modes due to its unpredictability. Furthermore, it's in a constant state of change to bring the "Next Great Things", who cares if the audio mixer or the TouchBar becomes a bit slow? An AV receiver only needs to do one thing, so it can do this well.
Re: We need physical audio kill switches
#236I let my spouse, who likes the novelty of a touchscreen, talk me into a Whirlpool oven a couple years ago that is controlled by touchscreen. I had no idea it was possible to hate an oven so much. The only saving grace is that the stovetop elements are still controlled by knobs.
I don't understand why people find novelty of touchscreens appealing. We've got to do a better job of educating consumers. The marketing behind touchscreens is so powerful that it is unanimously considered as a feature, something you must have. I get angry just thinking about the amount of marketing bullshit around touchscreens. Just go to Garmin Aviation website and now a lot of operation in airplane cockpits is off…
> I don't understand why people find novelty of touchscreens appealing. We've got to do a better job of educating consumers.
You’ve answered your own question: it’s the novelty. Plus people have been educated — by their phones.
Of course HN readers know that other than a few special cases (of which the phone is one) the touchscreen interface is worse. The problem is that white goods (washers, stoves) are cap ex and have a lifetime measured in decades. So there are plenty of people who have learned the hard way, but many more who have not yet learned the lesson.
As gratuitous touch screen is currently a fashion item attempting to differentiate between largely similar items. In another decade or so it will be considered an artifact of the 2020s, much like avocado-colored appliances and fold out stoves (we had one in the 70s) scream “1960s”.
But notice I said “2020s” (though touch screens have been around for a while), and that we had an item that screamed “60s” in a later decade. The latency in this sector is enormous.
Re: We need physical audio kill switches
#237I'm not sure I get this article - if you want a physical kill switch for audio, get a volume controller and set that directly under your monitor? Now you have a physical kill switch in the form of a GIANT near-zero-friction volume knob as well as dedicated hardware true-instant-mute button. No reason computers should come with that out of the box, in the same way there's no reason they should come with a DVD drive or…
He covers your argument in paragraph 5, under the "just ackchyually" crowd section. To summarize, you shouldn't have to use peripheral equipment to achieve what he believes should be standard functionality in hardware that emits audio signals.
Which is kind of a nonsense argument for laptops, and already true for desktops (even cheap PC speakers come with a nice big volume knob and on/off switch). So I read that paragraph, and see "why should I have to do what everyone else who cares about this already does?". If you care about a mute button, get a mute button. Just like if you care about having a good mouse, get a good mouse. And if you care about having good video quality, get a real webcam.
Welcome to owning a computer: it's not done, because you're an outlier with your own needs, just like everyone else. You get the "meets most people's needs" hardware, and you get to add all the peripherals you need on top of that yourself. And as a bonus, you buy them once, then if you get a new computer, you don't need to buy new ones: they still work, and no one had to waste time and money on adding those things just for you to throw them away a few years later when it's time to get a new computer.
Everyone wins.
Re: We need physical audio kill switches
#238Since the user is complaining about the way Mac OS handles the audio buttons, I'm surprised that he doesn't mention the problems with HDMI. I don't understand why the OS disables the audio controls of HDMI outputs. If I press the volume down button, I want the volume to go down. Instead, I get a "I can't let you do that" warning! This is particularly bad if I have my headphones connected to the display (I have both m…
macOS disables the audio control of HDMI outputs because that is what the HDMI specification expects/defines. If you think of all the devices that output via HDMI, Windows PCs are the outlier (afaik, not sure how Linux handles it) in allowing separate volume controls beyond those on the output device. Satellite set top boxes, media streaming devices (e.g. Apple TV - I realise NVidia Shield and some Chromecast apps do…
This is what HDMI CEC[1] is for, right?
The devices are supposed to coordinate on which device will output audio (TV, sound system, etc.), and they are supposed to send control signals (volume up, volume down, and mute button presses) in a channel over the HDMI connection so that whatever device is playing audio can adjust its volume.
Of course this assumes all devices involved implement CEC (which is optional) and that the implementations aren't full of bugs. But the point is HDMI does have a solution for this in theory.
CEC is how I can punch the volume control on my Samsung TV remote and the volume on my Denon AV receiver changes. (And it's not the TV remote transmitting IR to the receiver. Within the first 5-10 seconds of powering on, pushing volume up on the TV remote makes the TV try to adjust its own volume even though it's not playing audio. Then it comes to its senses and realizes it should be forwarding that via CEC.)
---
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_Electronics_Control
Re: We need physical audio kill switches
#239Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't understand why people find novelty of touchscreens appealing. We've got to do a better job of educating consumers. The marketing behind touchscreens is so powerful that it is unanimously considered as a feature, something you must have. I get angry just thinking about the amount of marketing bullshit around touchscreens. Just go to Garmin Aviation website and now a lot of operation in airplane cockpits is off…
Touch controls are only warranted when you need to support a large number of varied interactions which can't be supported by physical controls, or if you have to support arbitrary gesture-based input (like a drawing tablet for example). If that's not the case, physical controls are always better. If you're operating a vehicle, or can't look at the display for any reason, tactile controls are leagues better.
Another benefit, for kitchen appliances: a flat screen is easier to clean than physical knobs.
Re: We need physical audio kill switches
#240Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nice, I need to come up with a solution for this on desktop. My dream is a Chrome extension which recognizes Youtube ads and auto-mutes while they are playing.
uBlock Origin + Sponsorblock
Now we need a blocker of bloat. I mean the kind of bloat where the video lures you on specific thing in thubnail/tittle and then theres minute of talking and into and "lets get started".
Sponsorblock is godesnd, but so far only solution for above been to just stop watching certain creators