The main argument I've heard for having only buttons for volume control is so it can be controlled by a remote or software, and while that prevents using potentiometers, I don't understand why that somehow prevents using a rotary encoder for volume control. Sure, you don't have nice hard stops at the max and min volume, but twisting a knob is still much better than having to button mash volume up/down
@nytpu Also if they *really* cared it would totally be possible to have a servo/motor setup that works like a rotary encoder but that physically resists going beyond min/max while still allowing software control.
I know of at least a few hardware projects that do this, by this point.
@joepie91 A lot of people said that a lot of 90s Sony receivers had it, and then tons of pro gear like mixing boards has backdriven potentiometers and sliders and such.
@nytpu Do you mean the motorized knobs/sliders that physically move when remote-controlled?
As the thing I'm thinking of doesn't even require that kind of thing, it can just dynamically decide to provide backpressure based on the current value and motor feedback
@nytpu This is one of those, I believe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ip641WmY4pA
@joepie91 Oh yeah that'd be a reasonable and interesting modern solution, but even with more basic stuff with just a servo and a normal potentiometer it's possible. Or, for something that's cheap and simple enough for more mid-range consumer gear, just a plain old rotary encoder lol (which was more the point of my original post: there's a middle ground between pro gear's fancy stuff and low-end buttons that people pretend doesn't exist)
@nytpu (There's even some really cool designs out there that can eg. generate 'notches' at variable distances dynamically, essentially emulating tactile feedback through motor backpressure)