Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We need physical audio kill switches

rubenerd.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

421–430 of 443 posts

Re: We need physical audio kill switches

#421

Post by mindslight »

Gibbon1 wrote: post #363
mindslight wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no idea these days, but it's clearly something that takes 100ms+ to process an input event (java? html? flash? all of the above?). Responsive encoders/buttons/displays were doable 15 years ago with 5 MIPS microcontrollers in C. Driving an HD44780 character LCD is easier than a full raster display, which explains the appeal of the bloat, but quick sprites etc should be completely doable after two decades of pro…

I have two thoughts. One is an overloaded CAN Bus. Some process is polling the switch every 100ms. The second is the process itself isn't allowed to run very often because it's sharing CPU time with a bunch of critical stuff.

No switches should be getting polled over a CAN bus. If there's enough of a processor to be a CAN node, there's enough processor to debounce a button and transmit state change events.

Sure the situation might exist, but it's exactly the kind of bad engineering I'm calling out.

Re: We need physical audio kill switches

#422

Post by pueblito »

evan_ wrote: post #280
yholio wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A few years down the road, the radio switch transmitter breaks down and is no longer manufactured. The receivers, wires and the mechanical switches blocked in the ON position are hidden somewhere under multiple layers of drywall. But the functionality of the switch can be emulated with with a software defined radio attached to a 1GHz Raspberry Pi running Linux. It works great, but an out of date kernel enables a viru…

Wouldn’t the switches just be placed in the boxes for the old switches? Burying a switch as you describe is against code in the US and I assume other countries.

He's taking the ball and running with it

Re: We need physical audio kill switches

#423

Post by IE6 »

Jon_Lowtek wrote: post #77

>> "mute buttons on keyboards shouldn’t need to go to software, they should immediately send a signal to the motherboard’s DAC" I don't have a lot of knowledge about this, but audio is often streamed via USB or HDMI or Bluetooth or WLAN to another device, like headphones, an AV receiver, or wireless speakers and then uses the DAC in that device. So the blog posts wish would result in the mute button not doing anythin…

I don't know either but I think you're right anyway - the device closest to production of sound should probably have these physical controls. I agree with the article and hate having to find or fumble with a software based mute/unmute or volume controls. Like many people I have to work from home and I love my Sennheiser headphones because they have a physical microphone mute as well as a physical volume control that gives me immediate fine-grained control over my volume (no mute though, in extreme cases I physically remove them as someone else said).

Re: We need physical audio kill switches

#424

Post by formerly_proven »

amelius wrote: post #242
formerly_proven wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but then we're back to loud popping sounds when you turn it back on.

You could ramp up/down the voltage gradually. Anyway the thing is connected to an ADC. The computer can sense when the switch is turned on/off, and turn off (or flush) the audio pipeline at the appropriate times.

How does the ADC distinguish the transient from switching the bias voltage from an intentional signal? (Yes, if you see the entire waveform, this is quite easy, but because of the low frequency, this would incur another ~20-50 ms in latency, which is unacceptable).

Ramping the bias voltage requires additional components (cheapest way these days would probably be a separate DAC integrated into the audio codec, but then you are back to not having a physical kill switch) and also incurs extra delay for turning off and on (probably 100-200 ms).

Re: We need physical audio kill switches

#425

Post by GoToRO »

mindslight wrote: post #420
GoToRO wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not sure what lag are you refering, but on physical buttons there is a minimum of 50ms - 100ms required by the customer. I guess is the same as on iPhone where if you hold backspace, it will not zap all the text, but go one by one with a visible delay. These companies simply treat end users as babies.

A good rule of thumb is that anything over 10ms response appears laggy (not instantaneous) to a user. This is especially dangerous on touchscreen inputs, as they lack tactile feedback and therefore require the user to focus on the display until their input has been acknowledged. I can't tell the specific concept you're talking about though. If it's the auto-repeat rate (your iPhone example), then of course there need…

What I was saying is that the way you debouce a button comes from the customer (mercedes, ford etc.).

For sure you don’t act on a button press imediately. If you do that in automotive, all the electric noise will trigger the button randomly.

Re: We need physical audio kill switches

#427

Post by robotnikman »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #402
m-p-3 wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And it's in my opinion doubly-important in a car, where you must put all your attention on your surroundings. The tactile feedback of buttons and knobs is paramount, and touch screens are awful to operate while driving.

I've got an "older" (~12 years?) car atm, a Ford, and it's got pretty beefy controls for the radio as an extra lever on the steering wheel; it's got buttons for volume control but I can operate it without thinking or taking my eyes off the wheel at least.

I have a newer Ford and they still provide physically controls for the radio by the touchscreen as well as on the steering wheel.

When it comes to cars a touchscreen definitely isn't the best way to control things

Re: We need physical audio kill switches

#428

Post by adrianmonk »

voltagex_ wrote: post #293
adrianmonk wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

Whereas if you'd bought an LG TV you'd punch the volume control and nothing would happen on the Denon. Both devices claim to support CEC. With an older Sony TV, only some CEC messages worked (I think enough for a Chromecast to be able to switch the active input). I think they forgot the "consumer" part of "consumer electronics control".

Yeah, I don't know if it's my AVR or TV's fault, but every now and then the TV spontaneously becomes unable to control the AVR. I've never been able to pin down the exact steps required, but through some combination of power cycling things, unplugging HDMI cables, and redoing setup menu stuff, it starts working again.

It really takes away from the appeal of a convenience feature if it requires periodic battles to beat the equipment into submission.

Re: We need physical audio kill switches

#429

Post by ionwake »

dang wrote: post #304
ionwake wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That the UI was shit and you’re the kind of person who endorses it.

Personal attacks will get you banned on HN, so please don't do that here. Also can you please stop posting in the flamewar style? You've done it repeatedly lately, and it's against the site rules because we're trying for something a bit different on this site. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and posting in the intended spirit, we'd be grateful.

Sorry, I caused offence and will be more careful.

Re: We need physical audio kill switches

#430

Post by vel0city »

xxs wrote: post #394
jwr wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> much harder to clean off when you do That's only true for the type of electric stove that is still (bizarrely) popular in the US, with exposed spiral heaters. At least in the EU electric stoves are all glass. And many of them are induction heaters, which means your plastic chopping board wouldn't even notice being on the heater.

Induction hobs tend use 3 phase lanes 230v/400v, around 7kW. The US suffers from low voltage mains. It'd take around 60A to get 7kV. OTOH, leaving a plastic (PP or some other thermoplastic) board on non-induction glass heater top would smear in a horrific way, close to impossible to clear it. The heaters do have LED illumination, though.

A cooktop in the US would be using 240V single-phase power. 7,000W / 240V = 29.167A.

Three legs come into the house, two hots and center tap neutral. Either hot to the neutral = 120V. Either hot to the other hot = 240V.

Post reply on HN