The bottom line, as the State argues on appeal, is that we do not know at which point the trial court turned down the volume, whether it was before any invocation of a right to counsel, after the first such invocation, or after numerous invocations of appellant’s rights. Under these circumstances, we cannot address the merits of appellant’s point of error. Obviously, if the trial court turned down the volume before any invocations of appellant’s rights were played before the jury, no error is present. In the absence of a record showing us at what point the volume was turned down, I would hold that we ca al objections for those situations where the trial court and the parties all understand the basis for the objection. See Camacho v. State, 864 S.W.2d 524, 533 (Tex.Crim.App.1993) (<HOLDING>). In this case, however, it is manifest'that,
holding that because generic objections do not afford a sentencing court sufficient notice such objections are inadequate to preserve specific claims of sentencing error holding that two general objections were insufficient to properly preserve the issue holding that general objection did not preserve error on appeal holding it is axiomatic that issues are preserved when objections are made timely to the error or offense holding that while general objections are discouraged they are valid to preserve error when the ground of the objection is apparent