Comment 14 for bug 783243

On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 1:39 PM, jus <email address hidden> wrote:
> @RJ My question was, why we need to allow for so LONG lead-in times. Now
> I see that the lead-in time calculation might be flawed because it
> depends on the length of a track. Bug or feature?

Bug I think... but it's not straightforward one to fix. The way Owen
did it he allowed playposition to vary from -0.14 to 1.14 instead of
0.0 to 1.0. For longer songs, the .14 will add a longer lead-in. The
max and min playposition would need to change as a function of the
track length but there are parts of Mixxx that have it hard-coded to
.14.

>
> Example:
> Having a track with 1:00 min length gives 0:08 min lead-in time , having a track with 7:00 length gives 0:57 min lead-in time.
>
> >From a practical point of view - nobody spins the record more backwards
> cause a track is longer.
>
I agree it's not useful to have such a long lead-in.

> Idea:
> Lead-in time could have a value of 2(4?) bars, based on the tracks BPM.
> This allows to use the lead-in time as originally intended and you could also us it to create exact drop-ins to a tracks beginning.
>
> Using the picture from #9 i could imagine to change the triangles to be
> only visible on a beat , with a filled one on the 1st beat in a bar.
> Drawback: This works only with a fixed time signature (like 4/4 ).
>
I like this idea! It's common in DJ software to assume the signature
is 4/4 anyway so it's not a terrible thing to do.

> --
> You received this bug notification because you are a member of Mixxx
> Development Team, which is subscribed to Mixxx.
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/783243
>
> Title:
>  Display lead-in and lead-out visual cue in waveform
>
> To manage notifications about this bug go to:
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/mixxx/+bug/783243/+subscriptions
>