[Canola] Feature Request: Volume Adjustment
 

I am pretty sure that it was quite intentional to have the volume setting for Canola 2 to be independent of the rest of the OS. I'm not too miffed about that except in some instances when I need more volume, but have to adjust the system volume higher to get it.

So here is my feature request, and maybe this is something that can go alongside other request for equalizer-like controls:

- an option to map C2's volume to the system
- an option to map C2's volume to the system volume with proportional control (for example: 50% in C2 = 75% system)
- sound profiles (plugin maybe?) - voice, bass, rock, jazz/classical, surround, etc.

Hopefully others might find something like this a helpful additon for C2. I'm getting a lot of use out of C2 these days and so these little things are coming to the front of my usage.

Re: Feature Request: Volume Adjustment
 

Yes, actually we are just respecting some serious guidelines (network and sound) and trying not to access things directly and then find conflicts with the Maemo's media engine.

Yeah, this would be indeed almost the whole equalizer thing. About the mapping to the system default, we may try doing something outside, that you can install as plugin on your own risk. As I said, there's a couple of system things on that side that we don't want to touch right now, but indeed it makes all the sense to be able to control it, we just want to avoid bigger problems (like the one we were facing, that once you set the volume, the media deamon from maemo would go there and set back to his value) what a mess : /

Anyways, this suggestion (more than a feature request) is going higher and higher on priority and if there's a clean way of doing it we will do it.

Marcelo

Re: Feature Request: Volume Adjustment
 

I'm not a Canola user, but one suggestion...

What if continued increasing of the volume (once it hits the maximum) would increase system volume, while keeping Canola's volume at maximum?

Re: Feature Request: Volume Adjustment
 

BEnson,

Thanks for the suggestion :) the real deal here is the application going around a system rule : / not the functionality itself ...

MArcelo