Instead of complaining again and again (Unity, Pulseaudio, Gnome-Shell, systemd, etc.) DO something! We're mostly pretty technologically aware here. I'm sure more help with upstream would be appreciated, instead of just bitching.
Link? I'd love to read what the agreement is, because Ive been waiting for that to happen haha
Originally Posted by GreatEmerald
Here you go:
Originally Posted by Ericg
Latest thread about it on the Wine mailing list:
(in short, the driver is currently being tested to see if it is good enough already)
"In a typical installation scenario under Linux, the user configures ALSA to use a virtual device provided by PulseAudio. Thus, applications using ALSA will output sound to PulseAudio, which then uses ALSA itself to access the real sound card."
Originally Posted by ShadowBane
thats one copy that dosent occur with alsa, wouldnt occur at all if pulseaudio was kernel-level
hmmm just been reading about how it was desinged
in theory it should be good, and with mr. Poettering orchestrating it it can achieve what it says
but when i see pulseaudio using 5% of my laptops cpu(could be just ubuntu ppl screwing it up again) to play a low sample rate sound from a youtube video, that tells me its either not there yet or its just doing a lot of useless stuff (5% of a cpu is a whole lot, lot more then people today think)
zero-copy is also a kernel thing that glibc can use, but still the page says that PA has a scheduler running all the time
all in all it can never achieve the efficiency of alsa (alsa with a ladspa plugin for a equaliser used ~1.5cpu to play a 44k mp3 on that shitty laptop)
and for all you talking about sound quality, please dont
Well, thank god for that. Wine audio has been an issue for awhile now.
PA has come a long way and may find its place as a fully useful tool
but i remember when it was young, back then putting java as a sound deamon would be of almost the same effect (15% cpu to play a mp3 )
Is there something wrong with Pulseaudio's sound quality? The main reason that it uses more CPU time than dmix does for the same job is that uses a better (and more computationally expensive) re-sampler when re-sampling is needed. Another thing that could cause extra cpu usage is doing more re-sampling than needed (setting alternate sample rates in pulse can help with this, if only one thing is running it will use a sample rate that is less expensive to use instead of the primary one.)
Originally Posted by gens
Originally Posted by LinuxRocks
I thought someone who states that something doesn't work without any proof would better fit your description about beaten childs...
As for 75 year old Moms, i bet you a million dollars that more of them can use Windows without an issue than Ubuntu... Linux is chosen on technical merits, not ease of use...
the sound quality difference should be unnoticeable, if not the same (probably is the same)
Originally Posted by ShadowBane
im just saying for the people who think its any different, that its probably not
(unless the settings are bad, either in PA or the program using PA/alsa)
PS i used ladspa, not dmix
Since we're saying random things about Pulse that have nothing to do with 3.0 I'll throw in my 2c.
On my media center, Pulse was a horrible experience that I ended up pulling off. The only way to make it work with my hdmi sound output was to replace the udev detection with loading a module specifically for 0,7 or whatever the proper output was. (HDMI would show up, but it would be trying to use 0,3 or something and not work at all). On top of that xbmc crashed frequently as the sound device would disappear - removed pulse and those crashes went away, and sound was consistent.
On my laptop on the other hand I use a USB headset and an external sound card depending on what I'm doing. Pulse makes all that incredibly seamless - far nicer experience than editing asoundrc files and using alsactl every time I want to switch.
As a result I have mixed feelings - I can see how it could cause very polarizing viewpoints depending on a person's hardware and common use cases. I'm curious to try it again on the media center with xbmc 12 and PulseAudio 3 and see if they've fixed up the rough edges.