Closes #362, without avg_noise still pending discussion.
This is turning a little bit copy-pastive, but once we see whether we want to support avg_noise or not, we can think about some refactorings maybe.
I've spent some time testing it manually, but I didn't include any tests which would cover those exact new paths. I think we have enough coverage regardless, so no need to multiply this test code. Let me know, if you think otherwise.
Closes #362, without
avg_noisestill pending discussion.This is turning a little bit copy-pastive, but once we see whether we want to support
avg_noiseor not, we can think about some refactorings maybe.I've spent some time testing it manually, but I didn't include any tests which would cover those exact new paths. I think we have enough coverage regardless, so no need to multiply this test code. Let me know, if you think otherwise.