On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 10:40:45AM +1100, David wrote: > On Sat, 27 Mar 2021 at 06:29, <tomas@tuxteam.de> wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 03:05:58PM -0400, Dan Ritter wrote: > > > Stefan Monnier wrote: > > > > > >> My Librem mini comes with a an audio jack in the front into which I can > > > > >> connect the same headphones-with-micro as used typically on phones. > > > > It's entirely possible that the Librem doesn't have a sound chip > > > that translates impedance changes to button clicks. You could > > > ask the hardware folks, right? > > > Ugh. A construction like this [1], where the mic is shorted with > > varying resistors to transmit signals? > > > Ugly hacks folks come up with, that :-/ > > I do not consider this to be ugly, at all. I am a hardware engineer. I am a physicist, so in some way one OSI layer below you ;-P [1] > Given that the headset cable must be flexible, robust, and tiny diameter, > it would be suboptimal to add dedicated wires for signalling. The reliability > of both connector and cable would be compromised. I think the real thing isn't the cable, but the connector and its compatibility. You only have the two rings for stereo, one for the mic and a common return. This was already stretching good-ol' jack too far. Introducing yet another ring would've been killing poor old audio jack :-) And killing Jack takes "courage", as Apple's Tim Cook once said. Which is an euphemism for "we can afford to gouge our users". Anyway. It is a classical "hack" which means taking something you have and extending it in some unexpected and usually very creative way. Enjoyable, most of the time extremely useful, in a nutshell: the engineers core value :-) But I stand by "ugly". Which isn't intended to be dismissive. P.S: I've no aversion to analog electronics, but I think it's rim-full of ugly hacks "we just pretend this transistor has no VBE0 and is a linear device" or something :-) > I don't understand why anyone would think this is ugly, or what would be > less ugly. If it is an aversion to analog electronics, don't forget > that "digital" > electronics is an abstraction. And underneath that, everything is analog. And then, underneath that, again, digital. In a very twisted way. Or then, perhaps not... depending on whether you're looking at it. So physicists tell me ;-D Cheers [1] Tongue-in-cheek. I don't take myself too seriously. Seriously! - t
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature