Apparently there is a more advanced TLV based dB conversion.
On July 27, 2010 01:00:31 am you wrote:
If it is true, then in that respect, could we say this code should
be updated to use the TLV dB functions, for better accuracy?
Because at constant 0.5dB steps, the dB labels in alsamixer and
envy24control sure don't seem to correspond closely to what's
in the AK4524 datasheet dB table.
I do hope I'm reading that datasheet right !
Now, a question is: If TLV proves more accurate, do we really want
these odd value yet more accurate markings. Like -18.32 not -18.
Ie maybe pseudo 0.5 dB steps are better, visually.
I'm starting to think so.
It's a compromise after all. Not terribly accurate but it works.
It would become a problem if large inaccuracies arise with some chip.
Ah, maybe a user switch - regular constant, or TLV based for accuracy.
But I need to study that TLV stuff more...
See my other post about successful experiments with other dB funcs.
> I initially thought I'd do that,
We'll see. The saga continues.... Tim.
> I'll look into your ALSA API findings as
Linux-audio-dev mailing list